#to the broader political and socioeconomic climate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

qqueenofhades · 2 years

Note

Do you think climate change denial exits in Europe at all, and to the degree with which it exists in America?

Yes, it does exist. In fact, the European Sociological Review just published an article which you can happily read in its entirety for free: 'Socioeconomic Roots of Climate Change Denial and Uncertainty among the European Population', from February 2022. The introduction helpfully sums up what I think is the correct tack to take in considering climate change denialism, and places it into the wider context of far-right, ideologically reactionary beliefs with which it is often found:

There is clear evidence that climate change disbelief is not just the result of a lack of awareness or understanding (Whitmarsh, 2011; Lockwood, 2018). Instead, climate change disbelief appears to be part of a broader, cross-national ideology that is characterized by opposing what is called ‘the mainstream’ and challenges basic human rights, scientific facts, and democratic principles (Lockwood, 2018; Huber, 2020). Evidence of such an anti-mainstream ideology has also been observed on issues other than the environment, such as immigration, globalization, and pluralism. The spread of this ideology has been held responsible for the increasing popularity of populist radical right parties (Inglehart and Norris, 2017; De Vries, 2018). Explanations for this development typically refer to a backlash against modernization (Inglehart and Norris, 2016; McCright et al., 2016; De Vries, 2018; Gidron and Hall, 2020). Climate change disbelief is assumed to be an ideological counter-reaction among some social groups, especially those who hold conservative values and support populist radical right parties (Poortinga et al., 2011; Whitmarsh, 2011; Lockwood, 2018; Krange, Kaltenborn and Hultman, 2019).

In other words, climate change denial is part of a matrix of larger "anti-modernist" or regressionist beliefs that form far-right or reactionary ideals. A climate change denier is more likely to also oppose COVID vaccines, believe in conspiracy theories, hold xenophobic/anti-immigrant beliefs, etc etc. These are cross-national and international belief systems, and not regionally or geographically specific. A militant climate-change denier and COVID vaccine misinformation-spreader who lives in Alabama has much more in common with someone from California who also believes that, even though the Alabaman and the Californian are from stereotypical "red" and "blue" states and both probably have next-door neighbors who think they're nuts. Basically, where someone lives is no longer a strong predictor of what they believe, and traditional conservative vs. liberal designations are largely meaningless for understanding these patterns. These beliefs, thanks to the internet and social media, are able to gain a foothold regardless of where someone physically lives and what the prevailing ideological environment in that region has traditionally been. Europe is by no means exempt.

This is also, in my view, part of the disingenuous leftist argument that "the Democrats would be right-wing in Europe!" and "Europe is more progressive!" and etc etc. As someone who has lived and worked in both America and Europe, this, uh, isn't true. Europeans are fond of positioning themselves as the "sane and grown up" alternative to America, especially as America has slid down the slippery slope to outright crazytown. But Europe has no right to act as if it doesn't have its own problems, its own rightwing hate-mongers and wannabe fascists (looking at you, Orban!), its own reactionary political parties that are gaining footholds in various parliaments, and its own deeply rooted social issues that shape its response to postmodern challenges in both similar and different ways to the US. Yes, Americans are often awful, myopic, insular, and functionally unaware of anything outside their own experience or system, but.... again, that doesn't give Europe any kind of permanent moral high ground. Giving the EU the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, after they actually, finally refrained from causing most of the major wars in history for centuries, plus slavery, colonialism, imperialism, etc, was just a touch too much on the nose.

For example: Emmanuel Macron, president of France, runs and markets himself as a center-leftist, and due to prevailing French political precedents, there are things in France (such as labor rights and workers' strikes) that are much stronger than they are in America. We make jokes about the French going on their annual strike because there is, in fact, a strong tradition in France to simply walk off the job if you aren't happy with it, and aggressively push for reforms as a result. But Macron would struggle HARD to get elected as a Democrat in America, thanks to his pro-big-business and deregulation agenda. His other beliefs certainly aren't notably more leftist than American Democrats, and just because the only political element that leftists can focus on, i.e. Marxist economics, is stronger in one context in France than it is in America doesn't mean that all of Europe is magically more left-wing and the Democrats are terrible etc etc. In terms of economics and democratic socialism, yes, Europe tends to have a much stronger social safety net than "all libertarianism all the time!" America. But yet again, that is not the only factor in quantifying what counts as leftism, and Europe's ongoing problems with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigration, nationalism, etc are just as bad as they are in America.

The religious right is not a mobilized political factor in Europe the way it is in America, and thus the American right's favorite culture wars aren't as hot-button, but did you know, for example, that abortion is still technically illegal in the UK? They usually don't prosecute it, and laws passed in 1967 and 1991 made it essentially permissible, but you can be jailed (as a woman recently was) for aborting via pills by yourself, without formal medical supervision. Two doctors need to sign off on the termination request and if they don't then you don't get it, and the only strictly legally valid reasons are for the health of the mother or in the event of a deformity or serious medical condition. Ironically, Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK where abortion is fully decriminalized, and even then only thanks to the Stormont (regional parliament) collapse. Abortion clinics in the UK have also reported an upswing of harassment and threats, and Brexit is a self-explanatory example of insular, protectionist xenophobia as (disastrous) political policy. Even though it has gone nothing but badly, there are still separatist movements within other EU nations, who want to be free from the overall collective responsibility to the rest of the continent and able to go back to their bad old ways as they please.

Anyway: yes, climate change denialism exists in Europe, no, they are not automatically better or smarter than Americans, and have plenty of their own social, cultural, and political problems that require addressing. So there you have it.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

183 notes · View notes

devenayak · 11 days

Text

Navigating the Nonprofit Landscape with Dr. Dave Nayak: Tips for Effective Philanthropic Investment

In a world filled with opportunities to make a positive impact, philanthropy stands as a beacon of hope, driving change and transformation across communities. However, the nonprofit landscape can be complex and varied, presenting challenges for those seeking to maximize the effectiveness of their philanthropic investments. From identifying worthy causes to evaluating the impact of charitable contributions, navigating this terrain requires careful consideration and strategic planning. In this blog, we will explore key tips for making the most of your philanthropic endeavors, ensuring that your contributions yield meaningful results and create lasting change.

Define Your Philanthropic Vision

Before diving into the world of nonprofit organizations, it's essential to clarify your philanthropic vision. What causes are you passionate about? What kind of impact do you hope to achieve? By defining your objectives upfront, you can streamline your efforts and focus on supporting initiatives that align with your values and goals. Whether your interests lie in education, healthcare, environmental conservation, or social justice, articulating your philanthropic vision serves as a guiding light, helping you make informed decisions about where to invest your resources.

Furthermore, consider the long-term impact you aspire to create. While immediate needs are important to address, sustainable change often requires a more strategic approach. By thinking holistically and envisioning the broader societal transformations you hope to contribute to as emphasized by community activists such as Dr. Dave Nayak, you can prioritize initiatives that promote systemic change and address root causes of social issues.

Research and Due Diligence

Once you've identified your philanthropic priorities, the next step is to conduct thorough research and due diligence. Not all nonprofit organizations are created equal, and it's crucial to vet potential grantees to ensure that your contributions are used effectively and efficiently. Start by researching organizations that align with your mission, examining their track record, financial stability, and impact metrics. Look for transparency and accountability, including clear reporting mechanisms and demonstrated outcomes.

Moreover, consider the context in which these organizations operate. Factors such as geographic location, political climate, and socioeconomic conditions can influence the effectiveness of their programs. By gaining a deeper understanding of the communities they serve and the challenges they face as emphasized by community activists such as Dr. Dave Nayak, you can make more informed decisions about where to allocate your philanthropic resources. Remember, effective philanthropy requires more than just writing a check; it involves actively engaging with and supporting organizations that are making a tangible difference in people's lives.

Cultivate Strategic Partnerships

In the realm of philanthropy, collaboration is key to maximizing impact. Rather than working in isolation, seek opportunities to collaborate with other funders, nonprofits, and community stakeholders. By pooling resources and expertise, you can amplify your collective efforts and tackle complex challenges more effectively. Cultivate strategic partnerships based on shared goals and values, leveraging each other's strengths to achieve greater outcomes.

Furthermore, consider adopting a systems-level approach to philanthropy, recognizing the interconnectedness of social issues and the need for holistic solutions. Engage in cross-sector partnerships that bring together diverse perspectives and resources, whether it's partnering with government agencies, businesses, or academic institutions. By fostering collaboration and synergy as emphasized by community activists such as Dr. Dave Nayak, you can catalyze broader systemic change and create sustainable impact that extends beyond individual initiatives.

Embrace Innovation and Adaptability

In a rapidly changing world, philanthropy must evolve to meet emerging challenges and seize new opportunities. Embrace innovation and adaptability as core principles of your philanthropic strategy, staying nimble and responsive to shifting dynamics. Explore innovative approaches to addressing social issues, whether it's leveraging technology for social good, experimenting with new funding models, or supporting grassroots innovations from within communities.

Moreover, be willing to take calculated risks and learn from failure. Not every philanthropic endeavor will yield the desired results, but failure presents valuable opportunities for reflection and growth. Embrace a culture of learning and iteration, continuously evaluating and refining your approach based on feedback and evidence. By remaining open-minded and adaptive as emphasized by community activists such as Dr. Dave Nayak, you can stay ahead of the curve and drive meaningful change in an ever-changing world.

Foster Long-Term Relationships

Effective philanthropy is built on trust, mutual respect, and long-term relationships. Rather than approaching giving as a one-time transaction, prioritize building meaningful connections with the organizations and communities you support. Invest in relationship-building efforts that go beyond financial contributions, such as volunteering your time, offering pro bono expertise, or serving on advisory boards.

Furthermore, recognize the importance of capacity-building support, helping nonprofits strengthen their organizational infrastructure and capabilities. Provide resources and mentorship to help them scale their impact and achieve greater sustainability. By fostering a culture of partnership and collaboration, you can create lasting relationships that yield dividends far beyond the initial investment.

Measure and Evaluate Impact

Last but not least, it's essential to measure and evaluate the impact of your philanthropic investments. Set clear goals and performance metrics upfront, allowing you to track progress and assess the effectiveness of your contributions over time. Invest in robust monitoring and evaluation systems that provide timely feedback and insights into what's working and what's not.

Moreover, embrace a learning mindset, using data and evidence to inform your decision-making and course corrections. Be transparent about your results, sharing successes, as well as challenges, with stakeholders and the broader community. Celebrate milestones and achievements, while also acknowledging areas for improvement and continued growth. By prioritizing impact measurement and evaluation as emphasized by community activists such as Dr. Dave Nayak, you can ensure that your philanthropic efforts are making a meaningful difference in the lives of those you seek to serve.

Effective philanthropy requires thoughtful planning, strategic decision-making, and ongoing learning. By defining your philanthropic vision, conducting thorough research, cultivating strategic partnerships, embracing innovation, fostering long-term relationships, and measuring impact, you can navigate the nonprofit landscape with confidence and maximize the effectiveness of your philanthropic investments. Together, let's work towards building a more just, equitable, and compassionate world for all.

0 notes

ciolookleaders · 14 days

Text

Embracing Worldly Leadership: Navigating Global Challenges with Vision and Empathy

In today’s interconnected world, the concept of leadership extends beyond borders and cultures. Worldly leadership encompasses the ability to navigate complex global challenges with vision, empathy, and cultural intelligence. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, leaders must possess a broad understanding of global issues and a deep appreciation for diverse perspectives. In this article, we explore the principles of worldly leadership and how they can shape a more inclusive and sustainable future.

Understanding Worldly Leadership:

At its core, worldly leadership is about recognizing the interconnectedness of our world and the shared responsibility we have towards each other and the planet. It goes beyond traditional leadership models focused solely on achieving organizational goals to encompass a broader perspective that considers the impact of decisions on a global scale.

Worldly leadership requires leaders to embrace diversity and inclusivity in all its forms, whether it be cultural, socioeconomic, or ideological. By fostering a culture of inclusion, leaders can harness the collective wisdom and creativity of diverse teams to drive innovation and achieve sustainable growth.

Moreover, worldly leadership emphasizes the importance of empathy and compassion in leadership. Leaders who possess empathy are better equipped to understand the needs and concerns of others, build trust and rapport, and inspire collaboration and cooperation. This empathetic approach is particularly critical in today’s complex and uncertain world, where issues such as climate change, poverty, and political instability affect people across borders.

Principles of Worldly Leadership:

1. Cultural Intelligence

Worldly leaders possess cultural intelligence, enabling them to navigate diverse cultural contexts with sensitivity and respect. They understand that cultural differences shape perspectives, values, and behaviors, and they leverage this knowledge to build bridges and foster mutual understanding.

2. Global Awareness

Worldly leaders stay informed about global issues and trends, recognizing the interconnected nature of our world. They understand the implications of global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and geopolitical tensions and work towards solutions that benefit all stakeholders.

3. Collaborative Leadership

Worldly leaders embrace a collaborative leadership style, recognizing that no single individual or organization can address complex global challenges alone. They seek partnerships and alliances across sectors and borders, leveraging collective expertise and resources to drive positive change.

4. Ethical Leadership

Worldly leaders adhere to high ethical standards, prioritizing integrity, transparency, and accountability in their decision-making. They recognize their responsibility to act in the best interests of all stakeholders, including future generations, and strive to create a more just and sustainable world.

5. Visionary Leadership

Worldly leaders have a clear vision for the future and inspire others to join them on the journey. They communicate their vision with passion and conviction, mobilizing people around shared goals and values. By articulating a compelling vision for a better world, worldly leaders motivate others to take action and create positive change.

Practical Strategies for Developing Worldly Leadership:

By cultivating cultural competence, staying informed about global issues, building relationships across cultures, leading with empathy, and fostering sustainability, leaders can enhance their ability to lead effectively in a global context. These practical strategies provide a roadmap for individuals seeking to expand their leadership capabilities and make a positive impact on a global scale. Whether you are a seasoned executive, aspiring leader, or emerging professional, these strategies will help you develop the skills and mindset needed to thrive as a worldly leader in today’s interconnected world.

1. Cultivate Cultural Competence

Actively seek out opportunities to learn about different cultures, languages, and customs. Engage in cross-cultural experiences such as travel, language immersion programs, or cultural exchange programs to broaden your perspective and enhance your cultural intelligence.

2. Stay Informed

Stay abreast of global issues and trends by reading international news sources, attending conferences and seminars, and engaging with experts in various fields. Develop a deep understanding of the interconnected nature of global challenges and the potential implications for your organization and stakeholders.

3. Build Relationships

Invest in building relationships with individuals and organizations from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Foster an inclusive and collaborative work environment where all voices are heard and valued, regardless of cultural or demographic differences.

4. Lead with Empathy

Practice empathy in your interactions with others, seeking to understand their perspectives, feelings, and needs. Be attentive and responsive to the concerns of your team members, customers, and stakeholders, and demonstrate genuine care and compassion in your leadership approach.

5. Foster Sustainability

Integrate sustainability principles into your leadership practices and organizational strategies. Consider the environmental, social, and economic impacts of your decisions and take proactive steps to minimize negative consequences and maximize positive outcomes for people and the planet.

In conclusion, worldly leadership is essential for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world and addressing global challenges effectively. By embracing diversity, empathy, collaboration, and ethical principles, leaders can inspire positive change and create a more inclusive, sustainable, and prosperous future for all. As we strive towards a better world, let us embrace the principles of worldly leadership and work together to build a brighter tomorrow for generations to come.

FAQs

What is worldly leadership?

Worldly leadership refers to the ability to lead effectively in a diverse and interconnected global environment. It involves embracing diversity, cultural competence, empathy, collaboration, and ethical principles in leadership practices.

Why is worldly leadership important?

In today’s globalized world, organizations operate across borders, cultures, and languages. Worldly leadership is crucial for navigating complex global challenges, fostering inclusivity, driving innovation, and building sustainable relationships with diverse stakeholders.

How can I develop worldly leadership skills?

You can develop worldly leadership skills by cultivating cultural competence through exposure to diverse perspectives, staying informed about global issues and trends, building relationships across cultures, leading with empathy and humility, and promoting sustainability and social responsibility in your leadership approach.

What are the benefits of worldly leadership?

Embracing worldly leadership can lead to various benefits, including improved communication and collaboration across diverse teams, enhanced adaptability to changing global environments, increased innovation and creativity, stronger relationships with global stakeholders, and a greater ability to address global challenges effectively.

Can anyone become a worldly leader?

Yes, anyone can become a worldly leader with dedication, continuous learning, and an openness to embracing diversity and new experiences. By developing cultural competence, empathy, and a global mindset, individuals can enhance their leadership capabilities and make a positive impact on a global scale.

Also Read: Unveiling the Benefits and Drawbacks of the Fruit Water Diet

#Worldly Leadership

0 notes

itsthesiliconreview · 1 month

Text

Unveiling the Impact of Social Determinants to Health

Social determinants of health, including factors such as socioeconomic status, education level, and access to healthcare, significantly shape individuals' health outcomes. Disparities in these determinants often lead to disparities in health outcomes, particularly in marginalized communities. Policymakers play a critical role in promoting health equity by implementing policies that improve access to education, affordable housing, and healthcare services. By addressing social determinants, policymakers can create environments that support healthy behaviors and improve health outcomes for all individuals.

Understanding social determinants to health

Social determinants of health (SDOH) refer to the nonmedical factors influencing health outcomes, encompassing the circumstances in which individuals are born, grow, work, live, and age, along with broader societal forces and systems affecting daily living conditions. These encompass economic policies, social norms, racism, climate change, and political systems. SDOH, alongside health equity and health literacy, stand as key priorities in Healthy People 2030, a program outlining national objectives based on data-driven insights. Healthy People 2030 addresses five crucial SDOH areas: healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and built environment. Achieving health equity involves addressing social inequality through policy interventions and systemic changes to mitigate disparities in SDOH. Promoting health equity necessitates addressing social inequality to ensure fair access to resources and opportunities, ultimately fostering healthier communities.

Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Health Disparities

Research indicates the pivotal role of socioeconomic factors in elucidating health inequalities. For instance, socio economic disparities are associated with adverse health outcomes such as low birth weight, diabetes, depression, reduced life expectancy, heart attacks, and poorer self-rated health. Socioeconomic status (SES) serves as the foundation for three primary determinants of health: access to healthcare, exposure to environmental hazards, and health-related behaviors. Additionally, socio economic disparities can exacerbate chronic stress levels, further contributing to increased morbidity and mortality rates. Addressing socio economic disparities in health necessitates policy interventions targeting the components of socioeconomic status, including income, education, and occupation, as well as the mechanisms through which these factors impact health. Insights from the Acheson Commission in England, tasked with mitigating health disparities, offer valuable lessons for informing U.S. policy strategies aimed at addressing socio economic disparities and strengthening social support systems.

Environmental Factors and Health

Environmental pollutants and climate-related events significantly impact our health, with air and noise pollution, as well as heavy metals like mercury, directly contributing to health issues such as asthma, hearing loss, dehydration, and heart diseases. Moreover, air pollution not only affects human health but also contributes to climate change, exacerbating natural disasters like droughts and floods. Water pollution, resulting from human activities, contaminates bodies of water including lakes, rivers, oceans, groundwater, and aquifers. The effects of neighborhood environment perception on self-rated health have also been studied, revealing a positive correlation between better-perceived neighborhood conditions (such as safety, quietness, social cohesion, and quality infrastructure) and higher self-rated health.

Social Support Networks

Social support systems play a crucial role in our overall health and well-being. Research suggests that individuals with stronger social bonds are 50% more likely to survive compared to those with fewer connections. These connections can help mitigate serious health conditions such as heart disease and stroke. Studies have consistently shown that diverse social relationships contribute to stress reduction and lower risks of heart-related ailments. Additionally, robust social connections bolster our immune systems, enabling us to better combat illnesses and maintain a positive outlook on life. Neglecting our innate need for social connection can have detrimental effects on our health, leaving us vulnerable during times of adversity. It's imperative to prioritize social interaction, aiming for one to three hours of daily engagement. This commitment ensures a healthier, more resilient mindset, fostering emotional regulation, self-esteem, and empathy. In a time where social isolation is prevalent, investing in meaningful connections is paramount for both our physical and mental well-being.

Policy Implications and Interventions

Policies should prioritize research in behavioral medicine intervention and implementation science to promote health equity. Behavioral medicine researchers play a crucial role in maximizing the impact of interventions on health equity through intervention and implementation research. Key policy issues affecting healthcare delivery and population health equity in the United States include the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid expansion. Access to good jobs, education, and safe, affordable housing are essential components of health equity. Health equity entails enhancing opportunities for everyone to lead the healthiest life possible, regardless of their background, location, or socioeconomic status.

Conclusion

The summary encompasses the intricate interplay of factors influencing health outcomes, emphasizing the critical role of social determinants in shaping health equity and social inequality. Environmental justice and socio-economic disparities underscore the disparities in access to resources and opportunities, exacerbating health inequalities. Addressing these issues requires robust policy interventions targeting social determinants, such as socioeconomic status, education, and access to healthcare. Furthermore, fostering strong social support systems is essential for promoting well-being and resilience, particularly among marginalized communities. Prioritizing research in behavioral medicine and implementation science can facilitate the development of effective interventions to mitigate health disparities and promote health equity. Overall, achieving health equity necessitates addressing social determinants comprehensively and collaboratively, striving to create environments that support optimal health for all individuals, regardless of their background or socioeconomic status.

FAQs

How do social determinants intersect with racial and ethnic disparities in health? Social determinants of health, including socioeconomic disparities, play a significant role in perpetuating health inequities among racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. Data consistently reveal that these communities experience elevated rates of illness and mortality across various health conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, asthma, and heart disease compared to their White counterparts. This disparity is compounded by biases, stereotypes, prejudice, and clinical uncertainty within healthcare systems. These factors contribute to the exacerbation of healthcare disparities and further marginalize minority populations. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach that acknowledges the influence of social determinants of health and emphasizes the importance of bolstering social support systems. By addressing socioeconomic barriers and advocating for equitable healthcare practices, we can strive towards achieving health equity for all individuals, regardless of race or ethnicity.

What policies address social determinants of health?

Health policies are shaped by a multitude of factors, encompassing behavior, biology, policies themselves, social elements, and health services. These factors are interconnected and mutually influence one another, contributing to the individual variation in health determinants. The agency's Strategic Approach to Addressing the Social Determinants of Health to Advance Health Equity strives to promote equitable health outcomes by enhancing coordination between health and human services and addressing systemic and environmental factors underlying health status.

Why are social support networks important for health? Social support plays a vital role in helping us navigate life's challenges, enhancing problem-solving abilities, boosting self-esteem, and effectively managing health issues and stress. Individuals with adequate social support often experience lower stress levels. This support encompasses having friends, family, and other individuals to rely on during difficult times, providing a broader perspective and fostering a positive self-image. Research indicates a strong correlation between social relationships and various aspects of health and well-being. Conversely, insufficient social support has been associated with depression, loneliness, and altered brain function, elevating the risk of conditions such as alcohol use disorder and cardiovascular disease.

What are some examples of neighborhood conditions influencing health? Elements such as the amenities available in a neighborhood, the presence of open spaces, and the proximity to workplaces play significant roles in shaping our levels of physical activity, access to nutritious food, employment opportunities, exposure to nature, and opportunities for social interactions. These neighborhood characteristics impact both our health and well-being through biological and social mechanisms. For instance, heightened pollution levels can contribute to a greater incidence of childhood asthma, while elevated crime rates or neglect of infrastructure may amplify the risk of physical harm and personal stress. In the context of environmental justice, neighborhood features hold particular significance as they can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes among different socio-economic groups.

What can individuals and communities do to address social determinants and promote health equity?

Health equity is attained through the resolution of fundamental barriers hindering individuals from maintaining good health. On a broader scale, achieving health equity involves tackling social determinants of health (SDOH), while on an individual level, it entails addressing social needs. Prioritizing the resolution of social determinants of health is a central strategy in realizing health equity. Environmental justice and social determinants of health play pivotal roles in shaping health equity. By addressing environmental justice issues, such as unequal access to clean air and water, communities can work towards leveling the health playing field and ensuring equitable health outcomes for all. Effective communication, community mobilization, and access to education and information are vital tools in empowering communities and civil society organizations to take charge of their health. Thus, a comprehensive approach that addresses environmental justice and social determinants of health is essential for advancing health equity and fostering healthier communities.

#the silicon review #health #healthcare

0 notes

poryteecom · 2 months

Text

Putin Secures Fifth Term: What Lies Ahead For Russia?

Description : Putin Secures Fifth Term: What Lies Ahead For Russia?

In the wake of yet another resounding electoral victory for Vladimir Putin, the question that reverberates across the political landscape is not simply about the triumph of one man, but rather, what lies ahead for Russia as a nation. Putin’s recent win, while expected by many, signals a continuation of his strong grip on power, further solidifying his position as one of the most influential figures in contemporary geopolitics.

The aftermath of Putin’s win is laden with anticipation, not just within Russia but also on the global stage. Observers scrutinize every move, seeking clues to the direction in which Russia will navigate under his continued leadership. Will the nation continue along its current trajectory of assertive foreign policy, characterized by geopolitical brinkmanship and a muscular stance on issues ranging from Ukraine to Syria? Or will there be a recalibration, perhaps a shift towards greater cooperation and engagement with the international community?

Domestically, the focus turns to the socioeconomic challenges facing ordinary Russians. Despite Putin’s enduring popularity, there are deep-seated issues such as economic inequality, corruption, and a sluggish pace of reforms that continue to simmer beneath the surface. Will Putin’s new term usher in meaningful reforms aimed at addressing these grievances, or will the status quo persist, perpetuating a sense of disillusionment among segments of the population?

Moreover, there are broader questions about Russia’s role in shaping the future of global affairs. As the world grapples with pressing issues such as climate change, cybersecurity threats, and the rise of authoritarianism, what stance will Russia adopt? Will it seek to assert itself as a key player in shaping international norms and institutions, or will it retreat into isolationism, prioritizing its own interests above all else?

The answers to these questions remain elusive, shaped by a complex interplay of geopolitical dynamics, domestic considerations, and the personal inclinations of Vladimir Putin himself. Yet, one thing is clear: Russia stands at a crossroads, poised between continuity and change, with profound implications not only for its own citizens but for the wider world as well. As Putin embarks on another term in office, the eyes of the world remain fixed on Russia, eagerly awaiting the next chapter in its storied history.

0 notes

wotr123 · 2 months

Text

Water security in Maharashtra: A bigger challenge

For life to exist, water is the most basic necessity. It is essential for human growth that drinkable water be reliably accessible. Around 15% of all animals and 18% of all people on the planet live in India. All of the world's freshwater resources are found in just 4% of its landmass. Per capita annual freshwater accessibility in 1951 was estimated to be 5,177 cubic metres; by 2011, that number had decreased to 1,545 cubic metres. By 2025, it is expected to have decreased to 1,293 cubic metres from an estimated 1,368 cubic metres in 2019. The availability of freshwater is expected to decline to 1,140 cubic metres in 2050 if the current trend continues.

We cannot ignore the worrying trends or the reality that we now live in a water-scarce environment and that India must become water-secure as soon as feasible. UN-Water therefore endorses the inclusion of water security in Maharashtra as a component of the Sustainable Development Goals in the post-2015 development agenda and on the UN Security Council's agenda. The Sustainable Development Goal report (2019) shows that:

One in four healthcare institutions do not have access to basic water services.

Ten percent of the population does not have access to safely regulated drinking water services.

Six out of ten persons do not have access to facilities for safely managing sewage.

Open defecation is still used by at least 892 million individuals.

In 80% of homes without access to water on the premises, women and girls are in charge of gathering water. India is expected to become a water-scarce nation in the not too distant future if current overexploitation patterns continue. Farmers in India pray for the monsoons during the drought, but the issue goes beyond the drought and the current weather. While years of pollution, ineffective farming practices, decentralised water administration, groundwater exploitation, and inadequate infrastructure have reduced the water supply, a fast growing population and urbanisation have increased water needs nationwide.

Water security is not just about having enough water to drink and eat; it's also about marketing and consumer markets. This water problem will also have an impact on the nation's GDP. Enhancing water security needs to be a multisectoral focus.

Water security is a multifaceted socio-economic, environmental, and political issue that extends beyond the water industry. In order to manage the relationship between water, food, energy, and climate variability successfully and to promote sustainable socioeconomic growth and political stability worldwide, it is imperative that all sectors be encouraged and educated to take water into account in their policies and plans.

Therefore, developing policies to ensure that India has access to water and prevent water shortage is imperative. The nation must have sound water governance for water security in Maharashtra. Every person should have sustainable access to an appropriate supply of clean, safe water. Water conservation requires a comprehensive strategy and a broader vision. Reducing the likelihood of water shortage requires integrating water resource management strategies. Water resource conservation can be aided by the implementation of contingency plans and tactics. In order to preserve water, we should adopt a more sustainable strategy, such as the 9'R principles (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Recharge, Rethink, Reroute, Repurpose, and Rejuvenate).

Being a valuable natural resource, water should be conserved by every individual resident. The home should add water-saving appliances like dishwashers in the canteens and dual flushing toilets. sewage Gardening in parks should be done using treated water. In order to greatly reduce the demand for freshwater and the gap between the supply and demand for water, rainwater harvesting structures should be erected in government buildings, offices, universities, and parks. The "Zero Liquid discharge" principle and maximal recycling and reuse of wastewater should be pursued by even the industry. It is advisable for industries to periodically engage in independent water audits to ensure that their water-related operations are environmentally sustainable and on track with the help of WOTR.

0 notes

clearworldllcusa · 1 year

Text

HOW URBAN RESILIENCY CAN MAKE CITES

Outdoor solar led street lights

Urban Risks are Different and Require a Unique Approach

Urban areas are complex with highly interdependent systems. With these interdependencies, failing systems can result in cascading impacts that can disrupt the availability of clean water, electricity, and communications. Furthermore, urban systems extend beyond the administrative bounds of a given city to the surrounding areas that also depend on those systems for survival. The complexities of urban risks demand special focus within the new framework of actio—whether on land-use planning to improving governance—so that failure of any single element will not cause cascading collapse of other components.

Local Governments are Key

Since a large part of resilience-building depends on local actions to be more equipped to manage shocks and stresses. It is imperative that local city governments have the right sets of capacities and tools to support appropriate planning and action. This includes basic technical competencies, as well as the ability to make timely decisions. Having enabling policies that allow local governments to more directly access finance and to empower timely response to priorities of the cities is needed.

Urban Resilience Prompts a Different Way of Working Together

Cities across the world face a whole range of challenges, but new risks, like the impacts from climate change, will increasingly strain current systems and governance structures. These risks pay no attention to departmental units within the city. Likewise, no single actor or institution can work alone. An urban resilience framework calls for a process that brings together diverse departments and sectors to identify appropriate measures for preparedness, response, and recovery.

Rethinking Urban

Although “urban” is often described in a manner suggesting a fixed state, we need to rethink urban as a process. Cities are continuously changing—physically, socially, and politically. This means that the profile of risk in a city, too, is ever changing and evolving. The recognition of the importance of cities is also changing. While the immediate concerns of shocks and stresses may trouble municipal government officers and mayors. They should equally alarm Ministers of Finance as cities are the economic engines and centers of innovation for national economies.

Resilience… But for Whom?

With rapid urbanization comes the deepening of socioeconomic inequalities and urban poverty. Marginalized and poor populations in cities may lack access to land, political voice, legal recourse, and a sense of safety, much less basic infrastructure and services. Need to pay the explicit attention in promoting gender and inclusive development within resilience-building efforts for all economic levels.

As a result of these new urban possibilities – all enabled by emerging digital technologies – cities are quickly becoming powerful IoT hubs as they integrate computing, networking, skills, and culture; and spur innovation in areas as diverse as health, transport, and finance. ClearWorld’s Smart City Initiatives provides better security with smarter lighting and remote surveillance camera monitoring. At nearby parks and campuses, we’ll provide security and emergency call buttons on light poles and USB charging stations options. With the use of RETROFLEX and other related game-changing alternative energy technologies and solutions, proves time and again vast benefits for the environment, economy, and society.

In addition, our retrofitted poles operate on solar power, which is the most abundant renewable energy source on the planet. As a direct effect, there are no harmful greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels. With our products and solutions, air pollution is reduced. Natural resources are preserved. Beyond these immediate, short-term results, the use of ClearWorld’s technology has a much broader range of long-term benefits. Crime rates have decreased, as city streets remain lit throughout the night. Local governments have the ability to re-allocate funds to meet more of a city’s socioeconomic needs. Renewable energy sources also stimulate economic growth, creating new jobs in manufacturing and installation. ClearWorld is a leader in renewable energy and smart city technology

#outdoor solar led street lights #solar led solution #solar led street light pole

0 notes

rjzimmerman · 5 years

Link

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

The presidential candidates at the CNN climate forum on Wednesday repeatedly emphasized how climate change is hurting low-income communities and people of color, reflecting a growing awareness among Democrats that many of the problems they seek to address are inextricably tied to racism, poverty and other forms of discrimination and inequality.

Nine of the 10 participating candidates — all except former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. — named or clearly alluded to environmental justice, a framework that calls for environmental policies to explicitly address racial and economic disparities exacerbated by a warming planet.

It was an acknowledgment, as several candidates put it, that decades of racist and classist policies have concentrated people of color and poor people in the most polluted communities, and that those most immediately and severely affected by climate change are often those with the fewest resources to respond.

The environmental justice movement “embraces the principle that all communities and all people have a right to equal protection of our environmental laws,” said Robert Bullard, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University who pioneered the movement. “It’s equal access to the good things that make communities healthy, but also making sure that no community is overburdened because of their income or because of their race or their geographic location.”

The very presence of environmental justice as a topic of discussion in a major presidential forum was noteworthy and reflects broader shifts in the Democratic Party. In many policy areas, from climate change to abortion, candidates have begun to explicitly emphasize socioeconomic disparities — and, in particular, the impact of generations of systemic racism.

#democratic party #climate change #environmental justice #2020 presidential campaign

5 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 7 years

Photo

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

The climate crisis is often imagined as a sudden, all-encompassing, simultaneous collapse in which agriculture fails, the seas flood in, disease spreads, and human civilization crumbles into Hobbesian war of all against all. But in reality, some crises will appear more immediately and others will take a long time to arrive, and if we act with speed and purpose some can still be avoided.

In the near term, perhaps starting in the 2020s or 2030s, the foremost problem will probably be a new climate-driven urban crisis of disinvestment, abandonment, and depopulation caused by rising sea levels and large inundating storms that will leave rotting urban infrastructure. As the water rises and the floods increase in severity and regularity, the once posh shoreline will be the new ghetto.

(Water slums of Lagos Nigeria)

A new, climate-driven urban crisis could have major negative impacts on other parts of the global economy. The collapse of coastal real estate markets could trigger broader crises in financial markets while loss of the communication and transportation links provided by major cities could hurt the real economy. A climate-driven economic depression is not out of the question.loss of the communication and transportation links provided by major cities could hurt the real economy. A climate-driven economic depression is not out of the question.

Here Comes the Ocean

Even if we drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and stripped CO₂ from the atmosphere so as to stabilize temperature increases at no more than 2°C above the 1990 baseline, we are locked in for significantly higher sea levels. Melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, mountain glacier loss, and the expansion of ocean water volume due to its higher temperature are driving the sea level rise.

On the east coast of the US, the ocean is rising three to four times faster than the global averages, which are themselves rising at an accelerating rate. In 1993 the annual rate of sea level rise was 2.2 millimeters a year; in 2014 it had reached 3.3 millimeters a year. By 2100, global average sea levels could be 2 meters to 2.7 meters, that’s 6 to almost 9 feet, higher. Since 1900, sea levels on the East Coast have risen by about a foot, according to the federally funded National Climate Assessment.

This is usually invoked in threats that entire cities will be “underwater.” But in the meantime, the rising oceans are slowly but steadily reshaping property values, urban landscapes, and city dynamics.

Storms vs. Urban Infrastructure

The real threat is not so much the slow and steady increase of average sea levels but rather, the major inundations caused by large storm surges. These floods damage the infrastructure as a whole, not just its edges. During Hurricane Sandy the storm surge that hit lower Manhattan was 9.23 feet higher than a typical high tide.

When infrastructure gets damaged, even unharmed properties that depend on the damaged electrical, transportation, and water systems lose value.

A few inundations in quick succession could start a process of combined physical and socioeconomic decline. As the time and tremendous expense needed to repair water-damaged underground electric and telecoms lines, subways and rail lines, drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, and power stations becomes apparent, property owners will start panic selling.

When it becomes clear that sea walls were not constructed in time and vital infrastructure has started to collapse, property values will follow, possibly triggering broader financial panics

If properly planned for, one can imagine how such problems could be managed. But if the current denial continues until markets are caught unaware, there could be regional real estate panics and, flowing from those, major financial losses.

New York City’s Department of Finance recently estimated the total assessed value of the city’s property for fiscal year 2017 at more than $1 trillion. That is real money, enough to help trigger problems in financial markets more broadly.

Collapsed property values means a collapsed tax base, which means local government will be hard pressed to make costly infrastructure repairs. And it is the infrastructure as a whole that property values depend on.

Hurricane Katrina, which famously hit New Orleans in 2005 and was quickly followed up by Hurricane Rita, offers a hint of what to expect.

Professor Bernard Weinstein, at the University of North Texas, has estimated the cost of those combined storms as $250 billion in both direct and indirect damage. Weinstein found: 113 offshore oil and gas platforms destroyed, 457 oil and gas pipelines damaged, and almost as much oil spilled as during the Exxon Valdez disaster. Katrina destroyed almost half of New Orleans’s levies, wiped out most of the sugar crop, and wreaked havoc on the oyster industry. Insurance companies paid out $80 billion.

Most shockingly, Katrina killed 1,836 people across the Gulf, most of them senior citizens who were trapped in houses or abandoned in nursing homes.

We forget the magnitude of this damage in part because the real estate and entertainment industries in New Orleans embraced the rebuilding process with such gusto and denial. They were, after all, thrilled that the storm did its worst damage to poor black neighborhoods like the Ninth Ward.

Since Katrina, the Eastern Seaboard has been lucky. An unusually high percentage of hurricanes have been turning out to sea rather than making landfall. Ironically, recent research by James P. Kossin suggests this might be a short-term side effect of global warming. Just as a hotter sea surface temperature creates more hurricanes, a hotter land mass creates more vigorous vertical wind shear, which acts to block the arrival of hurricanes. That said, this natural protective pattern is not perfect, storms do make landfall, and the pattern of wind shear blocking hurricanes will likely change as other elements of the climate system are transformed.

Regardless, with a rapidly rising sea level, the near-future promises more metropolis-flooding mega storms.

Defensive Preparations

The New York City tristate area offers a glimpse into the possibilities and pathologies of planning for sea-level rise. After 2012, when Hurricane Sandy did $50 billion in economic damage, including destroying or damaging 650,000 homes, it was clear something needed to be done. Eventually Congress allocated about $60 billion in federal aid for recovery and resilience work in the impacted area. But the pace of disbursement has been painfully slow.

One example is repairing the L line’s Canarsie Tunnel, connecting northern Brooklyn to Manhattan. Flooded during Sandy, the tunnel is now badly corroded and is set for a $477 million, one-and-a-half-year closure for a vital overhaul. That’s just one short tunnel.

The city is now building a barrier around lower Manhattan, called the “Big U.” Designed to be covered with grass and serve as public open space, the wall will run from 42nd on the east side, along the shore, and up to 57th street on the west side. Construction will take years and cost billions.

At this rate and in this fashion, it is hard to imagine how the city’s entire 520-mile coastline could be secured. Worse yet, half preparations are, in some ways, as bad as no preparation. As the Rolling Stone’s Jeff Goodell said of New York City’s largely symbolic efforts thus far, “Barriers, dikes and levees make people feel safe, even when they are not.”

Meanwhile, in a clear subsidy to unsustainable gentrification, the city is also planning to build a $2.5 billion tramline along the Brooklyn and Queens waterfront, where old industrial warehouses are giving way to luxury high-rises. Similar insanity is found in New Jersey, where several groups of coastal homeowners, many of whom have subsidized government-provided flood insurance, are suing to prevent construction of protective sand dunes.

Eventually, cities that did not build sea barriers soon enough and high enough will get hit. Inundated by storms coming in close succession, some cities will find themselves too broke to rebuild their infrastructure and a process of real and metaphoric rot will set in. As public services decline, so will property values, each feeding the other; the rotting and molding landscape will be the visual symptom of a political-economic spiral of a shrinking tax base, disinvestment, and abandonment.

Eventually, those who can will leave the coast. A study by University of Georgia demographer Mathew Hauer projects that 250,000 people in New Jersey will be forced to move by rising seas by 2100. In Florida, Hauer projects that 2.5 million people will have to leave their homes by that date.

Perhaps some of the ravaged coastal cities will become sources of scrap. High-quality housing stock in dying coastal cities might be worth disassembling by scavengers in search of bricks, copper pipe, slate tiles, windows, doors, and old-growth hardwood lumber to sell to inland construction markets. We’ve seen that pattern in the Rust Belt: for much of the 1990s St. Louis’s top export was old bricks bound for the booming Sunbelt where its rubble was repurposed as patios bought on credit.

What will happen in Dhaka, Lagos, Karachi, or Rio? All are megacities situated on flat terrain close to sea level in countries already in crisis, legendary for corruption and poor planning. One has to assume that as the future impacts of climate change become obvious, many more people will migrate inland or attempt to go abroad.

Infrastructural Choke Points

The geography of global capitalism relies disproportionally on coastal cities as seats of commerce, trade, research, transportation, and education. They are the nodes that link the world economy together.

Much industrial production and the global food system, for example, depends not only on what happens in factories and fields but also on a small number of infrastructure bottlenecks along international supply chains at key ports, airports, road and rail links, and politically sensitive maritime straits like the Panama and Suez canals.

A recent study by the British think tank Chatham House found that 55 percent of the global grain trade passes through one of fourteen “chokepoints,” all of which are vulnerable to extreme weather like local flooding, rising sea levels, and the associated political and military conflict.

Shut enough of the chokepoints and the global flow of food will be threatened. Chatham House found that about 20 percent of global wheat exports pass through the Turkish Straits. Similarly, more than 25 percent of global soybean exports pass through the Straits of Malacca, which run between Malaysia and Indonesian.

The world got a glimpse of how local flooding can impact global supply chains in 2011 when flooding in Thailand inundated much of Bangkok, including more than 1,000 industrial facilities that made everything from cars and cameras to hard drives. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction estimates the Thai floods reduced global industrial production by 2.5 percent. The world’s top three insurance companies paid out $5.3 billion in claims.

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #flooding #capitalism #infrastructure #climate change #environmental justice #economic inequality #jacobin #jacobin magazine

91 notes · View notes

tennesseeprelawland · 4 years

Text

COVID-19 And Climate Change: Environmental Law Implications

By Teresa Xu, Vanderbilt University Class of 2023

May 31, 2020

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a new temporary policy in which the EPA will not seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting requirements if companies’ noncompliance was found to have been caused by the pandemic[1, 2]. The new policy has sparked controversy and relates to broader questions about the impacts of COVID-19 on both US and international environmental laws.

Existing Environmental Laws in the US

The EPA was established and given the power to issue and enforce environmental regulations nearly 50 years ago under President Nixon’s administration, along with multiple laws that became the bedrock of US environmental protection and remain in place today[3]. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 require the EPA to set standards for the release of toxic pollutants into the air and bodies of water, respectively, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) “requires the federal government to conduct a lengthy environmental-impact study every time it wants to build, approve, or renovate something,” and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 empowers the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect species at risk for extinction[3].

There is no explicit constitutional requirement for environmental protection, given that the concept of “the environment” was not socially acknowledged when the Constitution was written, but all the 1970s environmental laws rely on the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8[3]. The Commerce Clause gives the government the right “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” [4]. However, the federal government delegated this power to the EPA, which means EPA rules carry the force of law—though they can still be overturned by a Congressional law[3].

Beyond the EPA and Nixon-era laws, a second category of environmental laws control how the government uses federally-owned public land. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916established the national parks system and a process for making new national parks; the Antiquities Act of 1906 allows the president to unilaterally allocate federal land for special cultural protection; and the Wilderness Act of 1964grants the government power to designate tracts of federal land as wilderness, which means that the land cannot be used in an economically productive way and should be left “untrammeled” by humans [3].

Supreme Court cases also set precedents that help outline the rights, obligations, and limitations of the EPA.Chevron USA., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) validated the EPA’s own interpretation of the Clean Air Act and established “Chevron deference”,the idea that if a federal agency has a plausible legal case for its regulation, then a court should let it stand[3, 5]. Chevron deference has generally been used to alternately expand or weaken the EPA’s authority, depending on the administration[3]. Yet this idea was overruled inMassachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), which challenged the EPA’s authority and held that the Clean Air Act required the EPAto regulate greenhouse gases[6]. Later, reinforcing EPA authority, American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut (2011) determined that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can only be implemented under the EPA, not federal common law [7].

International Environmental Agreements

The 2015 Paris Agreement was an environmental accord adopted by nearly all 197 countries to address the impacts of climate change, aimed at limiting the global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—which requires all countries to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions [8]. Even before this, however, the 1987Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layerwas an international agreement to regulate the production and consumption of nearly 100 man-made chemicals referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS)—chemicals that damage the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects Earth from harmful levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun[9]. To date, the Montreal Protocol is the only UN treaty that has been ratified by all 197countries[9].

COVID-19 Changes and Implications

However, due to the pandemic’s significant economic and social disruption, previous environmental policies and agreements have been undermined.Because the EPA has also extended the deadline for when emitters need to report their 2019 greenhouse gas emissions, data which is relied on by both the EPA and outside stakeholders to assess the adequacy of existing regulations, the new policy may further restrict public access to climate data and progress and delay assessment of new regulatory proposals [10].

The EPA’s policy may also exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities and health problems across the US.Port Arthur, Texas hasa disproportionately high number of industrial polluters that must be reported to the EPA due to high toxicity—and there are many similar cases across the US[11]. A third of the population is African-American, and likely due to the significant industry, the inhabitants have higher rates of cancer, asthma, and cardiovascular disease when compared to state averages—disproportionate health concerns that will likely only be worsened by COVID-19, especially since a study has linked higher COVID-19 death rates to past exposure to air pollution [11]. COVID-19 and climate change can therefore intersect in creating health problems, and allowing polluters leniency may especially pose a risk to minority communities.

The EPA’s policy also has implications for the US’s neighboring countries, Canada and Mexico—it may violate treaties between the countries, related to cross-border environmental problems. The amended environmental agreement under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) commits the three countries to ensure that their laws and regulations protect the environment and are enforced through measures that include compliance monitoring and reporting [12]. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between the US and Canada forbids either country from causing water pollution that will cause injury to health or property in the other country, and the companion Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012accounts for the shared Great Lakes ecosystem[12].The 1991 and later 2000 Canada-US Air Quality Agreement aims to reduce air emissions that cause acid rain and transboundary smog emissions[12]. Violating these treaties may worsen international relations.

At the global level, efforts to jointly confront climate change have essentially vanished[13].Although this was meant to be a “pivotal year” for climate change efforts, in which 196 countries were to introduce revised plans to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, this year’s UN climate summit was postponed to next year, and nations have all but shut down their economies[13, 14]. Other international meetings related to the environment have also been disrupted, and many countries have, like the US, curtailed established environmental policies[14]. Indeed, this time of crisis may inflame nationalist tendencies, which would further impede global cooperation, whether towards address COVID-19 or climate change [13].

On a more positive note, lessons from the pandemic may improve policies and procedures. One is that COVID-19 can raise concern and prompt action addressing climate change: based on current evidence, the pandemic’s outbreak is linked to deforestation and human impacts on the environment[15]. COVID-19 is also creating worldwide structural shifts and economic investments with lockdowns and stimulus packages, revealing how the global community can unite to respond to a crisis if the issue seems urgent enough—actions that could be applied to the slower-moving, long-term climate crisis that is comparable in threat to COVID-19[15]. Thus, structural, legal, and technological changes can be made to combat the climate crisis as well. There are also implications for healthcare systems and income inequality—that healthcare needs to be strengthened andpeople need resources that can provide for their basic needs—and the COVID response suggests that we can indeedinvest in healthcare equipment and even renewable energy[16].Climate change wouldrequire governmental action in addition to a collective social response from citizens and workers in all occupations, but it seems from the COVID response that this is possible. Furthermore, to be best prepared,politicians would benefit from heeding scientific findings, independent from political or ideological convictions, as issues like COVID-19 and climate change seem to be worsened when they are politicized[16]. The pandemic may even raise awareness for environmental justice, given that people are increasingly aware of the disproportionate risk of COVID-19 infection among poorer and marginalized communities, a disproportionality that is also seen in environmental problems [11]. Overall, the pandemic exemplifies the mass social, health, and economic consequences of not being prepared for a crisis and the volatility of markets—which would suggest that if we can take action to mitigate COVID-19, we need to take action to mitigate climate change.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf

[2] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-corrects-record-after-reckless-reporting-temporary-compliance-guidance

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how-the-epa-and-us-environmental-law-works-a-civics-guide-pruitt-trump/521001/

[4] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/752

[5] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1005

[6] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1120

[7] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-174

[8] https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know#sec-whatis

[9]https://www.unenvironment.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol

[10] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/04/02/epa-covid-19-climate-data/

[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-and-climate-change-threats-compound-in-minority-communities/

[12] https://cela.ca/us-relaxation-of-epa-covid-19/

[13] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/10/998969/the-unholy-alliance-of-covid-19-nationalism-and-climate-change/

[14] https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/16/how-covid-19-could-impact-climate-crisis

[15] https://www.unpri.org/pri-blog/covid19-implications-for-the-inevitable-policy-response-to-climate-change-prepare-and-act-now/5696.article

[16] https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/491964-lessons-from-the-climate-and-covid-19-crises

0 notes

gracieyvonnehunter · 4 years

Text

“OK Boomer” isn’t just about the past. It’s about our apocalyptic future.

Christina Animashaun/Vox

It’s not really about age — and it’s more complicated than just memes.

For a long time now, the cross-generational dialogue between baby boomers and millennials has been built atop several recurring themes. Boomers — the generation born roughly between 1946 and 1965 — scoff that millennials expect “participation trophies” for doing the bare minimum. Millennials say boomers are “out of touch.” Millennials (born roughly between 1980 and 1996) are “killing” once-stable industries like cereal by saving money, spending less, and “eating avocados.” Boomers have “mortgaged the future” in exchange for hoarding wealth while also voting to end necessary social programs. Millennials would rather complain about student debt than buckle down, work hard, and “get a job.”

If anything, teens have been subjected to even harsher rhetorical maligning. Members of “Generation Z,” born roughly between 1996 and 2015, are portrayed as addicted to their phones, “intolerant” of their elders, and stuck in a “different world” thanks to the internet.

With all this repetitive back-and-forth — seriously, there are bingo cards — it’s no wonder the most polarizing meme of the year is a two-word dismissal of the whole debate. “OK Boomer,” which floated into the internet mainstream and rapidly gained traction this fall, is an attempt by millennials and Gen Z to both encapsulate this circular argument and reject it entirely.

“OK Boomer” is meant to be cutting and dismissive. It suggests that the conversation around the anxieties and concerns of younger generations has become so exhausting and unproductive that the younger generations are collectively over it. “OK Boomer” implies that the older generation misunderstands millennial and Gen Z culture and politics so fundamentally that years of condescension and misrepresentation have led to this pointedly terse rebuttal and rejection. Rather than endlessly defend decisions stemming from deep economic strife, to save money instead of investing in stocks and retirement funds, to buy avocados instead of cereal — teens and younger adults are simply through.

The conversation isn’t through with them, however, not least because the rise of “OK Boomer” has provoked concurrent backlash from baby boomers, many of whom have misread the meme, and feel it is motivated mainly by ageism. But that misreading also feeds the meme — because baby boomers failing to understand the point of “OK Boomer” is, well, the point of “OK Boomer.”

Don’t get it twisted. It’s important to understand that what really lies behind “OK Boomer” is increasing economic, environmental, and social anxiety, and the feeling that baby boomers are leaving younger generations to clean up their mess.

“OK Boomer” is an instantly relatable cry of frustration to many people

The earliest mentions of “OK Boomer” can be traced as far back as 2015 on 4chan, where the phrase was used as an insult by the forum’s anonymous users, aimed at other anons who seemed out of touch. But the phrase really took off this year on TikTok, as a rebuttal to angry rants by baby boomers about kids these days. A song by Peter Kuli & Jedwill known as “OK BOOMER!” — the verses define boomers as racist, fascist Trump supporters with bad hair — became a popular song choice for TikTok sing-along videos this fall. Teens on the platform used the song’s intro and chorus as a rebuttal to annoying run-ins they’d had with seniors policing or judging their behavior:

Sometimes, the complaints teens are referencing in these videos are typical generational conflicts. But more often, they’re politicized, with teens reacting to adults who are judging things like their gender expression, their financial choices, their approach to job-hunting, or their leisure activities. The broader background to all of this resentment is the perceived irony that while boomers nitpick and judge younger generations for their specific choices, it’s the boomers’ own choices that created the bleak socioeconomic landscape that millennials and Gen Z currently face.

“Everybody in Gen Z is affected by the choices of the boomers, that they made and are still making,” teen entrepreneur Nina Kasman told the New York Times in October. “Those choices are hurting us and our future. Everyone in my generation can relate to that experience and we’re all really frustrated by it.”

“[T]he two words [OK Boomer] feel downright poetic after years of hearing my generation blamed for ‘killing’ everything from restaurant chains to department stores to relationships,” wrote Grist’s Miyo McGinn in early November, “even as so many of the challenges people my age face — student loan debt, general economic instability, and, of course, a rapidly warming planet — are the result of short-sighted decisions made by earlier generations.”

This broader socioeconomic aspect seems to have gotten lost as the meme spread throughout the mainstream, however. Many people became aware of “OK Boomer” through the October New York Times article, which focused on teens who had taken the meme offline and were turning it into merchandise and fashion statements. Almost immediately, people rushed to sell “OK Boomer” merchandise and attempted to trademark the phrase, and brands began to use it on social media — completely missing the inherent critique of capitalism that the meme enfolds, which led to more eyerolling.

But millennials who mocked the instant trendiness of “OK Boomer” were drowned out by the meme’s intended targets: boomers. Some began claiming that “boomer” was an ageist slur equivalent to “the n-word,” while others merely discouraged the use of “boomer” in the workplace. Media outlets opined that the meme was “dividing generations.” Gen Xers offered the “both sides” take. In the Washington Post, history professor Holly Scott reminded everyone that boomers were once activists too.

All of this response helped further cement the meme as a dismissive retort to boomer condescension — and as it spread, its political aspects became more pointed. On November 4, 25-year-old New Zealand politician Chloë Swarbrick used the phrase as a rebuttal to one of her older colleagues in Parliament after the man heckled her during a speech about climate change. The moment occurred just as she was discussing the urgency her generation feels to prioritize and deal seriously with the problem, and explaining her frustration that previous cycles of lawmakers have failed to do so.

Swarbrick was castigated for bringing the meme into a political forum — but as she herself made clear in a subsequent essay for the Guardian, the meme represents a wealth of generational political concerns: “My ‘OK boomer’ comment in parliament was off-the-cuff, albeit symbolic of the collective exhaustion of multiple generations set to inherit ever-amplifying problems in an ever-diminishing window of time,” she wrote.

The point of Swarbrick’s climate change speech was that younger generations feel they can no longer rely on older generations to help solve major and daunting environmental and economic issues. And many baby boomers seem to be making her point for her by misunderstanding what “OK Boomer” is about.

What many boomers think “OK Boomer” is about: ageism and entitlement

“As a baby boomer myself, I have mixed feelings about the latest linguistic weapon of generational warfare being deployed against us,” Bloomberg’s Tyler Cowen recently wrote in response to the meme. Cowen touched on what he saw as the meme’s ageism and attempted to reframe it as an ironic compliment to boomers, asserting that boomers are still the boss. “The phrase ‘OK Boomer’ is itself an implicit and indeed somewhat passive admission as to who is really in charge,” he decided.

Cowen’s column was a strange echo of an August essay by former Deadspin editor Megan Greenwell. As she was exiting Deadspin, she wrote about the tone deaf and inexperienced changes the site’s new parent company, G/O Media, had brought to the newsroom. Beyond discussing specific issues at Deadspin, Greenwell’s essay was a larger swipe at the hubris of tech companies and corporate moguls for assuming that they, not the journalists whose media outlets they were ruining, were “the adults in the room.” This attitude prompted an eventual wholesale rejection by Deadspin’s editorial staff, as they chose to resign en masse rather than submit to the whims of the bosses they felt were out of touch.

John Taggart for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Deadspin employees work inside their office in Manhattan, New York, on November 1, 2018.

In a very real sense, that same tension between condescending, older authority figures and younger ones who reject them is at work in the “OK Boomer” meme. Boomers like Cowen are simultaneously anxious about the meme’s ageist implications, and eager to assert their wisdom over younger generations. In response to this line of thinking, the Twitter hashtag #boomeradvice recently went viral — but instead of praising boomers’ knowhow, the point of the tag was to mock the most out-of-touch advice, often about work, job-seeking, and finance, that boomers had given millennials and teens.

"Just call/go in and ask if they're hiring!" #BoomerAdvice https://t.co/1CgnpiHbhS

— Bree! (@iKhaleesi_) November 9, 2019

What’s largely missing from the “elders know best” logic is any acknowledgment that it’s part of the problem, and that younger, well-read adults might also have wisdom and insight into the problems they’re dealing with.

It doesn’t help that studies have found that older people are more likely to judge younger people harshly compared to qualities they have themselves. As Vox’s Brian Resnick recently explained, a study on a phenomenon called “presentism” showed that “adults who are more authoritarian are more likely to say kids today are a lot less respectful of elders than they used to be. Adults who are more well read say kids today are a lot less interested in reading than they used to be. And adults who are more intelligent (as approximated by a very short version of an IQ test) are more likely to say kids are less smart than they used to be.”

So if an older adult sees themself as financially successful, respectful, and job-loyal, the study suggests they might be more likely to view a younger person as a financially irresponsible and insolent job-hopper.

This is all arguably a new iteration of the “kids these days” generational cycle that every era experiences — at the very least, the backlash to the “OK Boomer” meme underscores the belief held by many millennials that boomers have never understood their generation. But because of the cultural and political moment we’re in, the stakes feel much more fraught and high-risk than other generational clashes.

What “OK Boomer” is really about: economic anxiety, the threat of environmental collapse, and people resisting change

“I talked to my dad about it and he said the reason the ‘boomers’ get so mad is because they feel as if they earned the right to say such things to us kids because they worked hard for what they have,” said Adriana Lepera, who talked to Vox via Instagram. Lepera, a popular TikTok teen with over 120,000 followers, made a viral “OK Boomer” TikTok reacting to a conversation she had with her grandfather. She used the meme to respond to his assertion that she should be working — even though she doesn’t even have a driver’s license yet, which she says makes it harder for her to find a job.

“After my [“OK Boomer”] video, I got a few comments from ‘boomers’ explaining how many jobs they had and how hard they have to work, proving the joke to be true,” she told Vox.

Lepera admits that today’s teens do have it easier than boomers did in some ways. “Today’s kids are getting things handed to them and that’s not what the boomers like to see so they make cocky comments because they believe that they are ‘superior,’” she said.

But she also argues that boomers miss the point — that crucial things are a lot harder. “We are working hard to get fewer jobs,” she said. “That’s why we’re mad, because all of the boomers made it to be like that.”

Teens like Lepera understand that “OK Boomer” is driven both by their generation’s deep economic and environmental anxiety, and by progressive values that are only getting firmer over time. Younger generations are more diverse, less religious, and, crucially, more directly impacted by economic inequality than their forebears. “Ok, Boomer, millennials actually earn 20 percent less than you did,” GQ declared last week. Millennials who value work culture, advancement possibilities, and quality of work over quantity are finding their paths to promotions blocked by baby boomers — but when they change jobs or careers in search of these things, they find themselves branded with the false stereotype of being disloyal job-hoppers. All the while, jobs remain scarce, student debt remains high, and the economic scandals of the Aughts have led to millennials being more cynical than their elders about the benevolence of corporate overlords.

But many of those offended by “OK Boomer” seem to understand very little of this. They’re instead sticking to their guns about the workplace, according to the teens who don’t trust them. “I feel as if they aren’t changing with the times,” Lepera told Vox. “They believe that how they did everything when they were younger, we should do as well.”

Whether it’s justified or not, boomers are largely perceived as resistant to progressive change. In 2016, boomers were more likely to vote for conservative options like Brexit and Donald Trump than younger voters; statistically, boomers are less concerned about climate change than younger generations. And even after overseeing decades of financial prosperity that’s arguably wrecked the economic future for decades to come, the richest baby boomers continue to amass wealth for themselves in the face of debilitating economic inequality.

Baby boomers, however, also have to contend with their growing obsolescence. Boomers as a voting bloc are outnumbered by millennials, and there’s an advancing push among millennials for greater voter turnout; in the 2018 election, Gen Z, millennials and Gen Xers collectively edged out the voter turnout of everyone older than them.

So the older generation is being told its advice is out of touch, and that boomers are out of touch, at a moment when their views have less traction in the current economic and political landscape than ever. Perhaps that’s why so many of them keep misunderstanding the meme — thereby strengthening the meme’s basic point.

The debate around ‘OK Boomer’ is a new spin on the old debate over millennials — and an even older debate about kids these days

We all know the immortal cry that parents just don’t understand, but in this case, the media and the cultural narrative around the meme isn’t helping — especially since attempts by the media to “explain” the meme or “clap back” keep missing the point about why millennials are mad. Some attempts to “explain” the meme have come across just as out of touch as the meme’s targets.

We desperately need younger editorial voices at places like WaPo. Imagine thinking millenials give a shit about “expanded entitlement programs.” https://t.co/mnbYCfLdqQ

— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) November 5, 2019

In an attempt to provide a retort to the meme, Myrna Blyth, the senior vice president of the senior advocacy group AARP, stated in an interview that boomers are “the people that actually have the money.” This widely shared quote came in for massive criticism and ridicule, and the AARP quickly apologized, reminding everyone that ‘isms that divide us are not ok’.

But Blyth’s statement is a peak example of boomers missing the point. A big cause for the resentment toward boomers is the perception that boomers are hoarding wealth. (This perception is accurate; the average baby boomer has a net worth that is 12 times more than the average millennial.) In particular, her quote highlights the pattern of boomers failing to realize that the perceived ageism of the meme, even as a joke, is a stand-in for rational economic anxieties.

Still, expressing this frustration through the meme seems to make boomers less inclined to listen, which just leads to doubling down on all sides. As novelist Francine Prose put it in an op-ed for the Guardian:

The accepted explanation and justification for all this is that the old have ruined things for the young: we’re responsible for climate change, for income inequality, for the cascading series of financial crises, for the prohibitive cost of higher education. Fair enough, I suppose, though it does seem unjust to direct one’s anger at the average middle-class senior citizen struggling to survive on social security rather than raging at, let’s say, the Koch brothers the Sacklers, the big banks, and the fossil-fuel lobbyists who have effectively dismantled the EPA. OK, Morgan Stanley, have a terrible day.

But to the TikTok teens, the boomers’ sensitivity to the meme just makes them hypocritical. “They feel as if they can say whatever they want about our generation and no repercussion,” Lepera told Vox, “but when we make a joke about them it’s the end of the world.”

In the end, the debate around “OK Boomer” might be another iteration of the endless parade of internet-fueled ideological debates in which neither side is listening to the other. For frustrated millennials and teens, “OK Boomer” is an emotionally valid response to boomer condescension, but to frustrated baby boomers, the retort is insolent and disrespectful. You say, “OK Boomer,” and I hear, “your entire generation has irrevocably destroyed human civilization.” Let’s call the whole thing off?

Perhaps, in the future, it’s worth eschewing the meme altogether and having one more conversation across the generation gap. Or, if you’re a boomer, you could take Lepera’s advice:

“Just like take a joke and calm down boomer ”

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KABlQK

#Vox - All

0 notes

timalexanderdollery · 4 years

Text

“OK Boomer” isn’t just about the past. It’s about our apocalyptic future.

Christina Animashaun/Vox

It’s not really about age — and it’s more complicated than just memes.

“OK Boomer” is an instantly relatable cry of frustration to many people

What many boomers think “OK Boomer” is about: ageism and entitlement

John Taggart for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Deadspin employees work inside their office in Manhattan, New York, on November 1, 2018.

"Just call/go in and ask if they're hiring!" #BoomerAdvice https://t.co/1CgnpiHbhS

— Bree! (@iKhaleesi_) November 9, 2019

What “OK Boomer” is really about: economic anxiety, the threat of environmental collapse, and people resisting change

“After my [“OK Boomer”] video, I got a few comments from ‘boomers’ explaining how many jobs they had and how hard they have to work, proving the joke to be true,” she told Vox.

The debate around ‘OK Boomer’ is a new spin on the old debate over millennials — and an even older debate about kids these days

We desperately need younger editorial voices at places like WaPo. Imagine thinking millenials give a shit about “expanded entitlement programs.” https://t.co/mnbYCfLdqQ

— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) November 5, 2019

Perhaps, in the future, it’s worth eschewing the meme altogether and having one more conversation across the generation gap. Or, if you’re a boomer, you could take Lepera’s advice:

“Just like take a joke and calm down boomer ”

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KABlQK

#Vox - All

0 notes

shanedakotamuir · 4 years

Text

“OK Boomer” isn’t just about the past. It’s about our apocalyptic future.

Christina Animashaun/Vox

It’s not really about age — and it’s more complicated than just memes.

“OK Boomer” is an instantly relatable cry of frustration to many people

What many boomers think “OK Boomer” is about: ageism and entitlement

John Taggart for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Deadspin employees work inside their office in Manhattan, New York, on November 1, 2018.

"Just call/go in and ask if they're hiring!" #BoomerAdvice https://t.co/1CgnpiHbhS

— Bree! (@iKhaleesi_) November 9, 2019

What “OK Boomer” is really about: economic anxiety, the threat of environmental collapse, and people resisting change

“After my [“OK Boomer”] video, I got a few comments from ‘boomers’ explaining how many jobs they had and how hard they have to work, proving the joke to be true,” she told Vox.

The debate around ‘OK Boomer’ is a new spin on the old debate over millennials — and an even older debate about kids these days

We desperately need younger editorial voices at places like WaPo. Imagine thinking millenials give a shit about “expanded entitlement programs.” https://t.co/mnbYCfLdqQ

— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) November 5, 2019

Perhaps, in the future, it’s worth eschewing the meme altogether and having one more conversation across the generation gap. Or, if you’re a boomer, you could take Lepera’s advice:

“Just like take a joke and calm down boomer ”

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2KABlQK

#Vox - All

0 notes

nyfacurrent · 5 years

Text

Conversations | Interview with Adriana Rios, Grants Program Manager at NALAC

The National Association of Latino Arts and Culture (NALAC), one of the nation’s leading nonprofit organizations dedicated to the promotion, advancement, development, and cultivation of the Latino arts field, is one of our partners in San Antonio, TX, supporting the Immigrant Artist Mentoring Program.

With over 400 applicants this past year, the NALAC Fund for the Arts (NFA) is the only national grant program investing in Latinx artists and nonprofit arts organizations in the United States.

During the first weekend of IAP San Antonio (meet our newest cohort here!), we had a chance to speak with Adriana Rios, NALAC’s Grants Program Manager, about the application process and other opportunities the organization offers. As an advocate for stronger representation and equity in the arts and a film lover at heart, Rios also gives us insights into the Adán Medrano Legacy Award in Film.

NYFA: Did you see any trends in past applications for The NALAC Fund for the Arts? What are some of the issues/themes that Latinx artists are interested in these days?

Adriana Rios: We were very excited to see the number of applications that came in for this year’s grant cycle! They came from all over the country and Puerto Rico, and it’s always incredible to see what Latinx artists are creating in their communities. In terms of trends, we definitely see an influx of applications coming in from states that have high Latinx demographics such as Texas, California, and New York. However, we’re also starting to notice an increase in applications from other parts of the country—such as the Midwest and the South—which are not always immediately thought of as areas with a high Latinx concentration. For our team, receiving applications from these states allow us to get a glimpse into what Latinx cultural production looks like across different areas and how NALAC can start to build relationships with artists producing important work in those places. We believe Latinx artists are often at the forefront of directly addressing the issues that are taking place in our current social and political climate, so we did see migration, immigration, history and human rights arise as consistent themes in the applications we received this year.

NYFA: Can you tell us what made some projects stand out during the review process?

AR: Of course! NFA applications are evaluated through the following criteria: Artistic Merit, Funding Impact, and Capability. We find that applications that rise to the top are able to successfully demonstrate how their work addresses each category. On a technical level, we saw that applications that stood out were succinct and clear. We make it a point in our review process to acknowledge that artists start at different places in the grant-writing process, some may have more experience writing grant proposals while others may be first-time grant writers. However, regardless of experience, the applications that always rose to the top were the ones that were able to paint a full picture of what the artist intended to do within the funding period. On an artistic level, we found that project proposals that pushed the envelope of Latinx cultural production were incredibly exciting to panelists. In other words, where there was innovation, reimagination, or artistic approaches that engaged the community in a creative way, there were high levels of enthusiasm and eagerness by the reviewers.

NYFA: Knowing about your love for film, we’d like to ask you some questions about the Adán Medrano Legacy Award in Film [Emerging Filmmakers]. Who should apply for it and how can they prepare in advance for this opportunity?

AR: The Adán Medrano Legacy Award in Film is a grant opportunity offered through the NALAC Fund for the Arts each year. It was developed by the Donor Collaborative of the Adán Medrano Legacy Award with the intention to further impel dynamic, Latinx cinema production by emerging filmmakers that contribute towards a cultural understanding of Latinx expression and identity. It’s currently open to emerging Latinx filmmakers in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, where “emerging filmmaker” is defined as: having less than five years of experience in filmmaking as a writer, director or producer; having completed at least one independent film or video work in one of those roles; and having received basic training in the media arts. Training can be formal (college or university) or informal (production courses, workshops, hands-on experience). So, if you meet that criteria, we encourage you to apply! However, NALAC is currently thinking about what emerging means in the broader context of film and cinematic production, especially since our community is so underrepresented in the industry. Currently, this is one of our most competitive grant categories, so if you are considering applying, my advice is to think hard about what work samples really speak to your experience as a filmmaker. Again, clarity is key in the grant-writing process and since film is so reliant on visual story-telling, it’s important to think about what work allows panelists to understand your capability and artistic ability.

NYFA: We are delighted to see that this year NALAC added an Artist Grant for artists living in Puerto Rico. Can you tell us more about this program?

AR: We’re so thrilled to be able to offer this opportunity for artists living and creating work in Puerto Rico. This grant opportunity came out after we closed the general categories for the NFA. We wanted to make sure that we were building an application that was accessible and relevant to the needs of artists on the island. We partnered with Pregones/Puerto Rican Traveling Theater, who has been actively involved with artists on the island since Hurricane Maria hit, and their team was incredibly helpful in both the crafting of the application and the outreach process. In its inaugural year, we received over ninety applications for the Puerto Rico Artist Grant. It is our goal to continue offering this grant opportunity in future years as well as develop relationships and networks with artists on the island. NALAC doesn’t simply want to be a funder, we want to support the artists and communities on the ground who have been doing the work to sustain the creative and cultural practices of the island and stand in solidarity with their efforts. Artists are leading the charge in both depicting the political and socioeconomic realities post-Hurricane Maria, as well as demonstrating the vibrant, resilient, and creative expressions that have existed on the island for decades.

NYFA: The application is now open for the NALAC Leadership Institute. Do you have any advice for people that are thinking about applying?

AR: The NALAC Leadership Institute is a week-long leadership and arts management program that aims to equip Latinx artists and arts administrators with innovative and practical strategies that lead to successful business practices in the arts. My advice would be to think about your professional goals and what you’re hoping to accomplish. Once you’ve defined that for yourself, consider the following: How can the NALAC Leadership Institute be a resource for you in your professional and artistic journey? Knowing your goals and professional aspirations are essential to the application process. You’ll want to be clear and concise in defining what they are in your narrative. Ultimately, it’s our hope that every fellow that passes through any of our leadership programs feel valued and that the commitment to growth is not only your objective, but ours as well.

- Interview Conducted by Alicia Ehni, Program Officer at NYFA Learning

About Adriana Rios Prior to joining NALAC, Rios worked in the programming departments of a variety of different places, including Geekdom, the Princess Grace Foundation, and the Tribeca Film Institute. Rios is a graduate of New York University where she had the opportunity to study Film and Television Production. During her time at NYU, she got involved with the Fusion Film Festival, a student-run organization that celebrates women in film, television, and new media. Rios is an advocate for stronger representation and equity in the arts. A film lover at heart, she hopes to one day start a production company that provides visibility and resources for underrepresented filmmakers.

About National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures (NALAC) The National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures (NALAC), based in San Antonio, TX, gives grants to Latino artists and arts organizations working in all creative disciplines across the United States and Puerto Rico.

This interview is part of the ConEdison Immigrant Artist Program Newsletter #113. Subscribe to this free monthly e-mail for artist’s features, opportunities, and events.

Interested in developing your leadership skills? You can apply for our Emerging Leaders Open Call, a free leadership development program for arts administrators within commuting distance to New York City. Deadline is January 30!

Images from top to bottom: Adriana Rios, Photo Credit: Luis Garza; Zeke Peña (2017 – 2018 NFA Artist Grant Recipient), El Puente, ink/digital illustration, Courtesy of the artist; Karina Skvirsky (2017 – 2018 NFA Artist Grant Recipient), The Perilous Journey of María Rosa Palacios, video still, courtesy of the artist; Yancy Villa-Calvo (2017 – 2018 NFA Artist Grant Recipient); Barrier Free: A Socially Engaged Art Installation, Photographer Credit: Brandon Dill

#immigrant artist mentoring program #immigrant artist program #iap #iap newsletter #conversations #interview #adriana rios #nalac #alicia ehni #nyfa learning #iap interview #business of art #nyfaiap #nyfalearning

0 notes

articlesofnote · 4 years

Text

hackernews and armchair social theorizing

So I read a lot of HackerNews, (a news aggregator reminiscent of early Reddit) because I’m a nerd and there’s a lot of good technical shit on there, AND there’s a pretty strong bias against “current event” type articles/stories so it’s nice to get some breathing room away from the facebook news feed from which I receive far too much of my information about the world.However, sometimes there’s academic material of a social bent because like any other group of engineers, the HN commentariat thinks that it’s smart enough to have a pretty good handle on any kind of problem - technical or otherwise. Today there was a discussion of post entitled “Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List” ( link: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/politics/news/2020/06/11-riots-and-political-theory.page ) which irritated me enormously. If I’m being honest, I was irritated mainly because I’m also of the engineering “every problem can be understood with sufficient kibitzing” mindset (one reason I feel so comfortable on HN, tbh) but I found that the discussion there (link: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24142649 ) rubbed well against the grain of my own thinking. So, in no particular order, some comments that I had opinions about:

> As with any destructive force, rioting is not a sustainable state of being. It is a blunt object to signal "Things are not okay" from societies whose frustration boils over in trying to achieve change through more articulate language. Rioting rarely affects change in the systems in the direction desired, as its methods are misaligned with desirable, sustainable values. Thus, it allows ruling classes to paint a harsh narrative of the rioters - leading in many cases to greater inequality and worse conditions. Riot theory seems like an interesting starting point to understand the socioeconomic climate in America today. A dialogue from which would naturally lend itself to survey the options that members of a community have in articulating opinions and criticisms of the systems they live within.

Seems like a wordier variation on “riots are the language of the unheard.” I was mostly annoyed by the second sentence - “rioting rarely...” - seems like a confident assertion of a trope without any actual analysis behind it. “Rioting rarely affects [sic] change... in the direction desired” is one of those statements that seems plausible - but the converse (i.e. that riots often effect desirable change) also seems plausible. I also wonder what OP thinks the “methods” of a riot are, that they are in conflict with “desirable, sustainable values” - also conveniently undefined. I’m also really annoyed by the assertion that a harsh narrative ascribed to rioters leads to “greater inequality and worse conditions” - again without any actual analysis attached to it! Maybe what bothers me is that OP isn’t actually adding any insight to the discussion? And/or the implicit assumption that other people take these assumptions for granted? I also see enough buzz-adjacent terms (”sustainable”, “inquality”, “dialogue”, “values”) that I suspect there’s not actually any depth to OP’s comment. So another possible reason that I’m irritated is that... not quite sure how to articulate... kinda, I take this seriously enough that I want to get to the bottom of it and reading this wasted my time? Or that I should have known better than to look to an HN comment for in-depth analysis? Or that OP is stating opinions as fact?

> A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence.

There’s a good amount of discussion about the difference between “riots” and “protests,” and it was fruitful for me insofar as I started to think about both of these terms as post-facto labels applied for political ends. Particularly with the term “riot,” as some other commenters noted:

> There are very few clear, unambiguous riots. What is a protest that has a few looters or arsonists operating within it? I've seen plenty of events here in the Pacific Northwest that police have labelled riots that I would in no way call a riot. I think that the legal definition very much plays into the discussion, because it gives the police the power to tell the media that a riot occurred.

> The American revolution, the February revolution, the Red River Rebellion, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the revolutions in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Chech republic, Poland, do I need to keep going? All of them had violence inflicted on property, and most of them had violence inflicted on people. Were one of those events happen in your town, your police department, your mayor, your governor, and your president would without hesitation call them 'a violent riot'.

Another concept from the discussion that I found interesting was that, far from the riot being the “language of the unheard,” they can be thought of as yet another form of political theater:

> One reason thinkers usually place riots outside the discourse is because they are an artificial spectacle, and which are necessarily tolerated by a faction in the establishment who could easily suppress them with violence, but they don't because the effect of the riots supports their strategy for change in their institution. Situationism, and anarchist ideas like "the propaganda of the deed" covered rioting from a more earnest perspective, but in watching movements and protests for a couple of decades, there is always someone within the establishment in whose interest it is to tolerate rioting. This also explains the regular use of police provocateurs to break up peaceful protests by manufacturing riots, and instead of mere explanatory power, you can use it to predict how long an establishment will tolerate a spate of rioting. It's a ritualized performance and a spectacle.

I particularly like this comment because OP is willing to assert that this concept has some predictive power - i.e. that it is a testable, potentially falsifiable model. An implicit openness to the idea that one might be wrong? What an idea!

Another thread of thought relates to the role of media in (de)legitimizing protests/riots:

> Now riots and civil disorder are there to be exploited by the ruling class leading up to elections until the desired result is changed; they are in power.Just like the noise leading into 2008, complete with celebrity moms and widows, to protests and destruction of property, once the political goal was achieved the money behind these people are groups were removed along with any attention directed their way through the press. The press has sufficient numbers who operate strictly at the order of political influences, people vastly underestimate this influence.

Taken as a whole, the discussion thread puts out a lot of opinion on what constitutes rioting, how it contrasts with “protesting,” how both of those activities fit into the larger society, the relationship between rioting, police power, the media, and the ruling elites, and what constitutes legitimate vs. illegitimate public action. It seems to be taken for granted that riots are characterized by looting and destruction of property:

> Many of the current rioters are rioting because it's fun and/or a way to get free stuff. No need to make it more complicated than that. > The rioters are destroying one of the last remaining pillars of the middle class - small businesses. Sure, Walmart and Amazon will be happy to take over the niche, with a private security force to replace the defunded police. But what it will mean for regular people is less meaningful jobs, more poverty, and even less security. > I'm referring to clear, unambiguous riots, where people run around looting stores or burning buildings down.

There’s also a lot of distinguishing between violent and non-violent actions:

> The problem with riots is they often get co-opted by actors whose goals are not in alignment with the goal of the original rioters. Also, there isn't usually a singular person, group, or entity who will take responsibility of the riots and say "We are rioting for XYZ reasons". Contrast this with peaceful protests, where the reasons for and goals of the protests are laid bare by its leaders.

But enough of cataloging what other people think - what the heck do I think about all of this? At this point, I’m conceiving of both protests and riots, along with other public actions - eg. Occupy Wall Street or CHAZ - as attempts on the part of the body politic (the commons, the polis, the average citizens) to carve out a space within the broader society where they have relatively more agency than otherwise. The specific label that these actions get - protest v. riot seems to be the main dichotomy - seems to depend mainly on how the powers-that-be “feel” about the threat the actions pose to their continued authority and legitimacy. If the actions represent little threat to their legitimacy, then it seems more likely that the action as a whole will be called a “protest” - a registration of support for a political opinion on the part of a motivated collective that nevertheless assumes the legitimacy of the system within which it acts. I recall the Women’s March in 2017 as perhaps the most recent example of a public action that I assume* was almost universally described as a “protest:” a public rejection of (among other things) the recent election of Donald Trump.

A “riot,” on the other hand, seems to be characterized as such when, regardless of its other qualities, the participants assume the illegitimacy of the prevailing power structure. Riots can be anarchic (eg. the Watts riots) or organized (Euromaidan, perhaps?), violent (Zoot Suit riots) or non-violent (Portland) in actual fact; regardless of their actual nature, they will be characterized as anarchic and violent by agents of the prevailing power structure because it is assumed that the desire of the actors is to weaken or destroy that structure, whatever their direct actions may be. If I demonstrate in Portland saying that the police should not exist, am I more likely to be called a protester or a rioter by agents of the state? In this case I assume I would be called a “rioter” regardless of anything else I actually do, violent or otherwise. The view of the state seems to be that my attitude itself is “violent” - the thought and the deed are one. In a more condensed form: My perspective seems to be that the collective gathering and action of people in public spaces is labeled based mainly on how that gathering is viewed by the powers-that-be, which may or may not have anything to do with what the collective actually does. That which is viewed as an actual threat to the power structure (”law and order”) gets called a “riot” and that which isn’t is a “protest” or “demonstration” or something else. This fits nicely with the idea that rang true above, that these sorts of collective actions are at least in part (and perhaps primarily) fostered by agents of the state insofar as they advance extant political agendas, eg. police infiltration of protests to ensure that they become “violent” and thus provide “proof” that more policing is necessary. This specific idea cropped up in several comments: > It's not uncommon where I am from for plain clothes police to start riots. That delegitemizes the protestors and legitemizes violent action by the state.

> Additionally in the UK, the police often infiltrates protest organisations. They are often near the very top.

> Property destruction will be, by default, blamed on the protestors rather than police instigators. In this case the police were easily identified simply because they were sloppy and forgot to not wear police issue boots. So after clarifying my thinking, do I have any better answer for why I found the discussion so irritating? Why did it get under my skin? At this point, I think maybe because I saw my own ignorance and inchoate thinking reflected in the lack of nuance and outright vapidity of a lot of the comments. At the same time, it sure seems like all the threads of my own thinking were collectively there, and finally I felt compelled to pull them together in some way - hence this post! Certainly I was also turned off by the outright dismissive attitude of several of the commentators, as I apparently believe in the legitimacy of rioting as a form of political speech. It’s not just “fun and/or a way to get free stuff!” I mean, what the fuck? Truly violent rioting (eg. property destruction, direct action against police forces, etc) seems like it might be cathartic, but I don’t believe that it’s fun per se. By way of clarifying my prior assumptions, I believe that in general (with rare, rare exceptions) people have to be driven to violence of any kind - the average person is not going to choose violence as a first resort and most people won’t even adopt it as a last resort. If a “riot” is genuinely violent - if those participating in it are destroying property and/or lives** - then it likely became so because those participants had no other outlet. I also distinguish between violence against property and violence against people: property is replaceable but people aren’t. That is, I could not give less of a shit about broken windows or burned buildings, and frankly I think it shows remarkable restraint on the part of “rioters” to pretty much only damage property - buildings aren’t the ones making life worse for the proletariat, though they are certainly the tools of those that do. I also suspect that the argument about rioters destroying small businesses - “one of the last remaining pillars of the middle class,” as one commentator had it above*** - is a stalking horse for larger capital interests. A franchise Starbucks or a Target or an O’Reilly is not a “small business” and working for one is not a “middle class” profession; moreover, there’s evidence that genuinely community-member-owned businesses were left pretty much alone in the ongoing Black Lives Matter demonstrations sparked by George Floyd’s murder. Jeez, I’ve said a lot. This is one of the reasons I haven’t done much writing - once I get started, I find I have a lot more to say than I can keep straight. But you know what they say: practice makes perfect! Guess I’ll keep at it.

#riots sociology hackernews rambling protests protesting state power violence

0 notes