5 October 2018

99 Percent Invisible: Curb Cuts

If you live in an American city and you don’t personally use a wheelchair, it’s easy to overlook the small ramp at most intersections, between the sidewalk and the street. Today, these curb cuts are everywhere, but fifty years ago — when an activist named Ed Roberts was young — most urban corners featured a sharp drop-off, making it difficult for him and other wheelchair users to get between blocks without assistance. 

Roberts was central to a movement that demanded society see disabled people in a new way. He’d grown up in Burlingame, near San Francisco, the oldest of four boys. He was athletic and loved to play baseball. But then, one day when he was 14 years old, he got really sick.

He had polio, which damaged his respiratory muscles so much that he needed an iron lung to stay alive. The polio left Roberts paralyzed below the neck, only able to move two fingers on his left hand. In order to escape his iron lung once in a while, Roberts taught himself a technique called “frog breathing,” a deep sea divers’ trick of gulping oxygen into the lungs, the way a frog does. For polio survivors, whose weakened breathing muscles weren’t strong enough to inhale that needed oxygen, “frog breathing” meant a person could get out of the iron lung for short stretches of time. Roberts was told it was bad for his health, but he kept doing it, determined to live on his own terms.

Vox: Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and the chilling power of sexual violence

In her 2006 book Analyzing Oppression, Boston University philosopher Ann Cudd takes an even broader social lens on these arguments. Cudd is interested in the way violence in general sustains oppressive social structures, like patriarchy and white supremacy. Violence, she argues, is one of several ways in which dominant groups to keep subordinate groups down. “Systematic violence,” meaning violence directed against members of a marginalized group by a dominant one, works to traumatize and terrify. [...]

“Violence against women is covert, neither recognized as a systematic war against women by the victims nor by those who would be sympathetic,” she writes. “[Yet] all women act under the shadow of a social threat situation which is, statistically, credible yet tacit. It changes our behavior; it makes acquiesce to limitations on our liberty that men do not have, it alters our sense of what is possible.”[...]

Sexual violence, these women argued, is not a purely intimate act between a victim and an assailant. It is a social phenomenon with much broader effects: It shapes how all women think and act. The greater the sense of fear, the more likely women are to avoid taking risks. By contrast, if powerful institutions can assuage women’s fear — if they believe they are safe, or that, at the very least, their assaulters will be punished — then the psychological effects of sexual violence can be minimized.[...]

For this reason, Cudd points to the way the legal system handles assault as playing an important role in the systemic effects of sexual violence. Rape, as feminists often point out, is not handled like robbery. Robbery victims don’t immediately encounter reflexive doubt that they were robbed, but rape victims often face a presumption that a crime may not have actually happened. Many women are reluctant to report their assaults for that reason — one factor in why they often go unpunished.

The Conversation: What happens if parliament rejects a Brexit deal?

Yet, after the result of the 2017 general election, the current government does not command a majority in parliament – it relies upon the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to stay in power, and is particularly vulnerable to dissent from within the Conservative Party itself. With Labour now indicating that it will almost certainly vote against the government’s Brexit deal, there is a very real prospect that the House of Commons might vote to reject the government’s agreement. This would be crucial, for while the House of Lords must also have the opportunity to debate the deal, its approval is not legally required for the government to ratify the deal. [...]

A successful no confidence vote in the government would not automatically trigger a general election – there would first be a 14-day period during which there could be attempts to form an alternative government, perhaps led by a new (or interim) prime minister. But the Conservative rebels who might defeat the government on a motion on the Withdrawal Agreement probably don’t want to see a general election that would give Labour the chance of power. It’s possible they could vote against the Brexit deal, but then in favour of the government retaining office in a no confidence vote, in the hope that this might see the UK sleepwalk towards a “no deal” exit from the EU. [...]

Alternatively, if MPs reject the Withdrawal Agreement on offer, and the path to a general election is blocked, could the prime minister call a second referendum to try to break the political deadlock? There is no standing legal provision for a further referendum, so this would need new legislation, and probably the support of the government and the opposition. This would be politically challenging, given the government has consistently ruled out a further referendum and Labour is sceptical. It would also be immensely time-consuming: it took around seven months for parliament to pass the EU Referendum Act 2015, time which is simply not available now before March 2019. [...]

The difficulty is that an extension requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 remaining EU member states. And it’s also by no means clear that the UK would be willing to delay withdrawal, particularly as the government was so eager to write a fixed exit date into domestic law.

The Atlantic: The Incredible Staying Power of Theresa May

But perhaps the greatest challenge to May’s Brexit plan didn’t come from her party at all. Arlene Foster, the leader of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, which is currently propping up May’s government in Westminster, offered a stern warning that her party would not support a Brexit deal that puts any divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K., including a customs border in the Irish sea or a special customs union for Belfast alone. This, Foster said, would be the DUP’s “blood red” line.

For all the divisions over Brexit that remain within the party, May’s hold to the leadership appears to be safe—at least for now. When all was said and done, even some of the prime minister’s staunchest critics conceded that her speech had bought her time to hammer out a deal, even if didn’t necessarily evoke full-fledged support for it. And while critics of Chequers are unlikely to change their mind anytime soon, they at least seem to agree that now wouldn’t be the right time to try and trigger a leadership election to push May out. [...]

A recent poll found that the Conservatives were more likely to win the next general election under May than other potential leadership rivals right now—a belief that also seems to have buoyed tacit support for May to remain in her role. But even those who have thrown their support behind the prime minister for now have conceded that this support may be time-limited. “I just think politics is a short-term game,” the House of Commons Leader and Conservative lawmaker Andrea Leadsom said Wednesday when asked whether the party would support the prime minister in the next election. “A week changes a lot. I think she’s had a fantastic day today.”

The Atlantic: The Remarkable Rise of the Feminist Dystopia

This feels like a particularly strange moment in history, but it’s one that writers seem to have anticipated: The past two years have seen a spate of works delving into the discombobulation of the present. During the early days of the Trump administration, readers sought out dystopian stories that connected the turbulence and the racism and the alternative facts of the 45th presidency with anxieties the world has had before. Over the last couple of years, though, fiction’s dystopias have changed. They’re largely written by, and concerned with, women. They imagine worlds ravaged by climate change, worlds in which humanity’s progress unravels. Most significantly, they consider reproduction, and what happens when societies try to legislate it. [...]

The novel that’s received the most attention over the past two years from women readers troubled by the news was actually published 33 years ago, smack in the middle of the Reagan administration. In 1985, as America lurched socially to the right in what was seen as a rebuke of the sexual revolution, Margaret Atwood published The Handmaid’s Tale, a speculative vision of a repressive theocratic state in America enabled by mass infertility and nuclear fallout. [...]

There were moments when life seemed to be doing its utmost to imitate Atwood. When Oklahoma lawmakers tried to pass a bill requiring women to get written permission from their sexual partner before having abortions. When the Trump administration sanctioned children and babies being literally ripped from their parents’ arms, and when the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed that the policy of family separation was actually “very biblical” because it was enforcing existing laws. [...]

There’s no mass epidemic of infertility in Red Clocks, no impending threat to the existence of humankind. Male politicians simply take away women’s rights because they don’t think women should have them. They’re incapable of summoning the empathy to imagine what an unwanted pregnancy might feel like, incapable of imagining that women’s desires regarding their own bodies should take precedence over men’s opinions. Red Clocks is plausible because men’s opinions on abortion and assault and female bodily autonomy have always counted more than women’s. You don’t need to see elderly white senators on television, lining up to apologize to a man who’s been accused of sexual assault, to grasp how much.

Social Europe: How The Handling Of The Financial After-Crisis Fuels Populism

During the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, central banks’ rescue of finance continued on an unprecedented scale for ten years with what is called Quantitative easing (QE). The striking effect of this was to send prices of financial assets sky-high and thereby substantially enrich the bankers, speculators and the already rich holders of these assets at levels that are much higher than before the crisis.

At the same time, ordinary people found themselves lastingly out of work on a huge scale. Governments whose own finances deteriorated steeply – not least because of their aid to the financial sector – rushed to cut back on their spending, especially on welfare. Everywhere, classic right-wing governments but also social-liberal left ones as in France adopted deflationary policies to cut the cost of labor and loosen up the labor market rules, thus making ordinary people’s working and living conditions far worse. While cutting again the taxes on the super-rich and corporate earnings to preserve the country’s « attractiveness. » [...]

In these conditions it is scarcely surprising that both classic right-wing and left-wing parties are utterly discredited in working class eyes all over the world. The remedy to the crisis should have been to fight these deflationary tendencies by creating public sector jobs and providing support for infrastructure and human capital (education/skills training/R&D et al)investment projects, strengthening regulation of the labor market and wage-earners’ social security, returning to progressive taxes and redistribution of wealth…

Quartz: All the places plastic bags are banned around the world

In America, only two states have conclusively banned single-use plastic bags: Hawaii and California.

Though Hawaii’s ban came first, it wasn’t technically a state-wide ban: all five Hawaiian islands (Big Island, Honolulu, Kauai, Maui, and Pala) individually banned plastic bags at various points—the last of which took effect in 2015. The bans, which aim to fully phase in by 2020, range in definition and severity, but generally still allow for the use of 100% recyclable plastic bags.

California passed a unilateral, state-wide ban in September of 2014, and it went into effect in November of 2016. The law bans single-use plastic bags at all large retailers, and imposed a 10-cent charge for paper bags. Before the law was passed, more than 100 California local laws banning bags were already in place. [...]

At least 32 countries around the world have plastic bag bans in place—and nearly half are in Africa, where plastic bags frequently clog drains, leading to increased mosquito swarms (and, as a result, bouts of malaria). [...]

In Ireland, a 22c plastic bag tax has reduced usage by as much as 90%. Portugal has seen a drop in excess of 85%. And since imposing a tax in 2003, Denmark has seen the lowest plastic usage in Europe, averaging just 4 bags per person per year.

Quartz: The future of food is farming cells, not cattle

But we’re reaching the upper limit of how much longer we can do this for. According to a report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock grazing takes up 26% of Earth’s ice-free land, and an additional 33% of arable land is used to grow the food that feeds them. This set-up is also susceptible to unpredictable events, such as epidemic viruses, antibiotic resistance, and weather incidents like rogue snow storms and heat waves. [...]

One of the most important ways to do that is through cellular agriculture. This is the process of producing animal products from cells rather than from whole animals. Instead of raising a cow from calf to slaughter—and requiring all of the feed, water, and land that goes with it—we can create animal proteins without the farm. [...]

It’s also potentially better for our health: If we weren’t so reliant on concentrated animal farming operations, we could rein in problems with epidemic viruses and antibiotic resistance. Right now, the vast majority of antibiotics are manufactured and used for farm animals, not for human beings. The development of antibiotic resistance could be one of the biggest threats to global public health. Moving toward more controlled, clean systems for animal product manufacturing may help us reduce our dependence on antibiotics in farming.