Mediaboss Marketing

Last week, an important vote took place at the European Parliament to approve recommendations on the existing EU laws on live animal transport. Animal welfare has been a hot and sensitive topic for a while now, drawing attention across the board, yet Members of the EU Parliament (MEPs) showed nothing but a total lack of ambition when it came to improve the dreadful conditions in which millions of animals are transported. Even Stella Kyriakides opening speech, the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, reminding her audience that animal welfare is a priority within the EU Farm to Fork strategy, did not have the desired effect.

Last December,the Committee ofInquiry of the European Parliament on the transport of live animals (ANIT) published its recommendations, demanding that rules on the duration and conditions of animal transport be tightened, due to the numerous breaches of existing regulations. Unfortunately, last weeks vote goes in the opposite direction, in fact watering down the already weak Committees text.

Overall, MEPs agreed for a ban on transport of very young calves, while calling for a shift to transport of meat and genetic material instead of live animals whenever possible. Unfortunately, they did not commit to limiting travel time to eight hours, leaving ample room for longer journeys for most animal species. They also suggested installing CCTV cameras in vehicles to ensure more effective control, and expressed their wish to have stricter transport requirements, i.e. limits on temperature, humidity and ammonia levels in vehicles. They did, however, reject all amendments to ban the transport of animals in a late state of pregnancy, and of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses born less than 35 days before departure (the 4-week age limit remains only for calves).

If eight hours seem too few sang the workers during the trade union struggles of the early 20th century, to assert their right to an eight-hour working day. It is now time to consider the right for animals to be treated as sentient beings, as enshrined in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. If one thinks of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes which clearly states the five freedoms for animal welfare, it is hard to understand how MEPs can fail to take more radical measures.

Every year, millions of live animals are transported within and outside European Union territory, for slaughter, for breeding purposes, from one farm to another, for fattening, etc.On most cases, it is due to the current high specialisation of production cycles: for example, a region is specialized in breeding, another one in fattening, and another one in slaughtering and processing. Another reason is trade: the market expects animals to be sold alive.

Inevitably, every journeyinvolvessuffering. Most often, live animal transport causesstress (animals are sentientbeings andare not used to be moved by vehicle), overcrowding (animals are usually crammed in small spaces during travel), exhaustion and dehydration (especially during the hottest summer months). Whats more, unexpected situations can cause travelling duration to last longer, incidents can occur in which animals lose their lives. Last but not least, live animal transport favors disease spreading.

Solutions do exist to improve the current situation, among which are the creation of small slaughterhouses in the proximity of farms, or mobile slaughterhouses; and the strengthening of local food systems to make them more efficient and resilient. This way, farmers would be more connected to their territories and consumers would be more aware of where their meat comes from.

[Originally published in Il Manifesto on 27/01/2022]

More:
Live-Animal Transport in the EU Will Remain Inhumane - Slow Food International

This weekends March for Life rally, the large anti-choice demonstration held annually in Washington DC to mark the anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, has the exuberant quality of a victory lap. This, the 49th anniversary of Roe, is likely to be its last. The US supreme court is poised to overturn Roe in Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health, which is set to be decided this spring. For women in Texas, Roe has already been nullified: the court went out of its way to allow what Justice Sonia Sotomayor called a flagrantly unconstitutional abortion ban to go into effect there, depriving abortion rights to the one in 10 American women of reproductive age who live in the nations second largest state.

These victories have made visible a growing cohort within the anti-choice movement: the militias and explicitly white supremacist groups of the organized far right. Like last year, this years March for Life featured an appearance by Patriot Front, a white nationalist group that wears a uniform of balaclavas and khakis. The group, which also marched at a Chicago March for Life demonstration earlier this month, silently handed out cards to members of the press who tried to ask them questions. America belongs to its fathers, and it is owed to its sons, the cards read. The restoration of American sovereignty must follow the restoration of the American Family.

Explicit white nationalism, and an emphasis on conscripting white women into reproduction, is not a fringe element of the anti-choice movement. Associations between white supremacist groups and anti-abortion forces are robust and longstanding. In addition to Patriot Front, groups like the white nationalist Aryan Nations and the neo-Nazi Traditionalist Worker party have also lent support to the anti-abortion movement. These groups see stopping abortion as part of a broader project to ensure white hegemony in addition to womens subordination. Tim Bishop, of the Aryan Nations, noted that Lots of our people join [anti-choice organizations] Its part of our Holy War for the pure Aryan race. That the growing white nationalist movement would be focused on attacking womens rights is maybe to be expected: research has long established that recruitment to the alt-right happens largely among men with grievances against feminism, and that misogyny is usually the first form of rightwing radicalization.

But the affinity goes both ways: just as the alt-right loves the anti-choice movement, the anti-choice movement loves the alt-right. In 2019, Kristen Hatten, a vice-president at the anti-choice group New Wave Feminists, shared racist content online and publicly identified herself as an ethnonationalist. In addition to sharing personnel, the groups share tactics. In 1985, the KKK began circulating Wanted posters featuring the photos and personal information of abortion providers. The posters were picked up by the anti-choice terrorist group Operation Rescue in the early 90s. Now, sharing names, photos and addresses of abortion providers and clinic staff is standard practice in the mainline anti-choice movement, and the stalking and doxing of providers has become routine. More recently, anti-abortion activists have escalated their violence, returning to the murderous extremism that characterized the movement in the 1990s: in Knoxville, a fire that burned down a planned parenthood clinic on New Years Eve was ruled an arson. Maybe the anti-choice crowd is taking tips from their friends in the alt-right.

Its not that the anti-abortion movements embrace of white nationalism is totally uncomplicated. When the Traditionalist Worker party showed up at a Tennessee Right to Life march in 2018, the organizers shooed them off, and later issued a statement saying they condemned violence both from the right, and from leftwing groups like antifa. Hatten was fired from her anti-choice job after a public outcry. The anti-choice movement has even started trying to appropriate the language of social justice. They posit equality between embryos and women, try to brand abortion bans as feminist, incessantly compare abortion to the Holocaust, and claim that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation, in the words of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. Anti-choice groups are eager to claim the moral authority of historical struggles against oppression, even as they work to further the oppression of women.

But the link between the anti-choice movement and white supremacy is much older and more fundamental than this recent, superficial social justice branding effort. Before an influx of southern and eastern European immigrants to the United States in the latter half of the 19th century, abortion and contraception had only been partially and sporadically criminalized. This changed in the early 20th century, when an additional surge of migrants from Asia and Latin America calcified white American racial anxieties and led to white elites decrying the falling white birth rate as race suicide.

Abortion bans were quickly introduced nationwide. As the historian Leslie Raegan put it, White male patriotism demanded that maternity be enforced among white Protestant women. The emerging popular eugenics movement supported this campaign of forced birth for fit mothers, while at the same time implementing a widespread campaign of involuntary sterilization among the poor, particularly Black women and incarcerated women. Meanwhile, white women who sought out voluntary sterilization were discouraged or outright denied the procedure, a practice that is still mainstream in the medical field today.

In the current anti-choice and white supremacist alliance, the language of race suicide has been supplanted by a similar fear: the so-called Great Replacement, a racist conspiracy theory that posits that white Americans are being replaced by people of color. (Some antisemitic variations posit that this replacement is somehow being orchestrated by Jewish people.)

The way to combat this, the right says, is to force childbearing among white people, to severely restrict immigration, and to punish, via criminalization and enforced poverty, women of color. These anxieties have always animated the anti-choice movement, and they have only become more fervent among the March for Lifes rank and file as conservatives become increasingly fixated on the demographic changes that will make America a minority-white country sometime in the coming decades. The white supremacist and anti-choice movements have always been closely linked. But more and more, they are becoming difficult to tell apart.

Read the original here:
White nationalists are flocking to the US anti-abortion movement - The Guardian

Transcript

Gideon Resnick: Its Friday, January 28th. Im Gideon Resnick.

Priyanka Aribindi: And Im Priyanka Aribindi, and this is What A Day, where were pleased to announce that our boomer allies have finally found out about Wordle.

Gideon Resnick: I think they will find it much harder to fall down alt-right rabbit holes on the cute word puzzle than in the Facebook hellmouth.

Priyanka Aribindi: Yeah. A five-letter word for insurrection? Trick question, there isnt one?

Gideon Resnick: Ideas show workers at an Amazon facility raise concerns about a mailbox again ahead of another union vote. Plus athletes are told to use burner phones at the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing.

Priyanka Aribindi: But first, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer formally announced his retirement yesterday and delivered a brief remarks at a White House ceremony, including this one on the American experiment:

[clip of Justice Stephen Breyer] I say I want you to pick just this up. Its an experiment thats still going on. And Ill tell you something, you know who will see whether that experiment works? Its you, my friend. Its you, Mr. High School student. Its you, Mr. College student, its you, Mr. Law School students. Its us, but its you. Its that next generation and the one after that, my grandchildren and their childrentheyll determine whether the experiment still works. And of course, I am an optimist, and Im pretty sure it will. Does it surprise you that thats the thought that comes into my mind today? I dont know. But thank you.

Gideon Resnick: Wow.

Priyanka Aribindi: Wow, that is right. I know he is not threatening us. It just felt a little, a little threatening to me. Its fine. President Biden reaffirmed his commitment to nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court and said that he would announce his choice by the end of February.

[clip of President Biden] I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyers legacy of excellence and decency. While Ive been studying candidates backgrounds and writings, Ive made no decision except one: the person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.

Priyanka Aribindi: So now that all of this has been formalized, lets talk about some of the responses that weve heard so far.

Gideon Resnick: Yeah, this is really only the beginning, but theres a lot. Here is just a brief overview. Some civil rights organizations are already gearing up to support the eventual nominee and really to counter any likely campaigns against her from conservatives. And already, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that Biden should not be influenced by the quote unquote radical left in making his decision. All right. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said again that the confirmation process is going to move quickly. Senator Kyrsten Sinema said that she looks forward to quote, thoughtfully examining the nomineeand this ones interestingSenator Joe Manchin said that he wouldnt mind if the nominee is more liberal than he is, noting that from his perspective, Priyanka, it is not hard to be more liberal than he is.

Priyanka Aribindi: And on that, he is correct.

Gideon Resnick: He is correct right there. Manchin and Sinema has voted to confirm all of Bidens nominees to the lower courts so far, which is an encouraging sign for how they might end up voting here. So all that being said, on yesterdays show, we went over Breyer, the replacement process, and the general future of the court. And today we want to dive in on all the potential political ramifications this could have in the near and long term.

Priyanka Aribindi: Yes. And for more on that, I spoke with the one and only Dan Pfeiffer, former White House Communications Director during the Obama administration and one of the hosts of Pod Save America. I started by asking him about the impact that this could potentially have politically for Democrats as we head into midterm election season.

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, I think it will have a galvanized effect for Democrats. We need a win. Its been a rough few months for Democrats. Getting to appoint a qualified history-making nominee with the first Black woman ever, I think, will be a boost to Democrats political fortune. I think it will give us something to rally around. One of the reasons why Bidens approval numbers have taken a hit is hes lost ground with Democrats, and I think hell be able to get some of that back by delivering on a core campaign promise.

Priyanka Aribindi: Do you think its too far out from the midterms to have an effect? Or do you think that this type of thing kind of carries on into, you know . . . ?

Dan Pfeiffer: I dont I dont think its a game changer per se, but I think we need to build some momentum towards the midterms. And so having some success over the next couple of months to get this confirmation in I think is pushing us in the right direction. So I dont think this is going to be like necessarily the Kavanaugh fight was for Republicans or the Amy Coney Barrett one was happening like minutes before the election, but it will certainly be helpful to Democrats, presuming everything goes the way we want it to go.

Priyanka Aribindi: OK. Also in the news this week: yesterday, we got some promising new numbers. The economy grew 1.7% in the last quarter, bringing the total growth in 2021 up to 5.7%. I believe thats the largest figure since the mid 80s. So good numbers there. Based on polling on the other hand, the public has not been too happy with Joe Biden in recent months. But how do good job numbers affect the president, the party in power, and how do those kind of square with the economic realities that most people are facing right now?

Dan Pfeiffer: This is probably the most narratively complicated economy in modern political history. You have 2021 was the year with the greatest private sector job growth in history, you have these growth numbersall the macroeconomic factors look incredibly strong. And particularly when you put it in the context of what President Biden was able to get us out of so quickly of what he inherited from President Trump. Yet people are pissed about the economy. Theyre incredibly angry. In every poll, people are more frustrated, angry about the economy than the pandemic. They believe that Democrats are not focused enough on the economy, and it is one very specific thing, it is inflation. And people are feeling inflation in their pocketbook and their wages are not going as far as they were before, they are paying more, particularly last year, at the gas station, grocery prices are upand that is clouding out all the other economic good news. People dont care about any of the other stuff because their dollar, their hard-earned dollars, are not going as far as they would like them to go.

Priyanka Aribindi: Right. Lets switch gears a little bit and talk a little more broadly about the midterms, which, like it or not, theyre coming later this year. Always a crazy realization for me every time I think about it. Traditionally, midterm elections have, um, shit turnout. Theyre known to be really tough for the party in power. Turnout was actually pretty high during the Trump years midterm, but it still wasnt great for him, obviously, in terms of outcome. Can you set the stage a little bit for us? What are Democrats and the president kind of walking into the midterms with? Whats it looking like?

Dan Pfeiffer: If you look at all the various factorsand I promise this will get a little bit better, but its going to start really hardall the various factors, Democrats are in a terrible position. This is the first midterm of a president, which is almost in every single case other than George W. Bush 2002, devastating for that president. Its happening in a redistricting year where Republicans control more of the maps than Democrats. Now there is some good news in this. One, with two thirds of the redistricting process done, I wouldnt say its been favorable to Democrats, but its been a lot less bad than we thought. And Democrats have opportunities to pick up a lot of seats in states like New York and Illinois that have been very aggressive in the redistricting process. The Senate map, to our great fortune, is very favorable to Democrats this year. We can not only keep the majority, but also expand it by a couple of seats, by only winning states that Joe Biden won in 2020that is Nevada, New Hampshire, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Thats six states. The Senate map generally is very bad for Democrats, and so it is a great fortune that we end up this year with a good map. That only happens every decade. We also have a very legitimate chance to hold on to key governors races in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and pick one up in Georgia, where in Arizona, where we have great candidates running with Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Katie Hobbs, among others, in Arizona.

Priyanka Aribindi: Got it. OK. Actually, Im very glad were talking because Im feeling a little bit better than I was 10 minutes ago. In the House and the Senate, democrats have very slim majorities at the moment. What is kind of the worst-case scenario? Obviously, well talk about the good stuff, dont worry, but what happens if they lose these majorities or the House majority?

Dan Pfeiffer: So if we lose the House, theres two things that we have to be very clear about. One, Joe Biden will not pass another bill of substance in his first term. And I think it is highly likely the House will begin impeachment proceedings against Biden for some trumped up, made up, thing.

Priyanka Aribindi: Right.

Dan Pfeiffer: And there will be endless investigations that would make Fox primetime blush in terms of its absurdity, will all happen in the House. If we were to lose the Senate, it is likely that Joe Biden would not confirm another judge of consequence in his first term. The Republicans are definitely favored in the House, and I think the Senate is a coin flip, but thats because the map benefits us, and what will really determine what happens in the Senate is what happens in the Republican primaries. You know, they are more electable Republican candidates facing off against some pretty Trump-y Republican candidates, and who wins those primaries could help determine how we do there.

Priyanka Aribindi: Got it. OK, so lets talk about the flip side. What if they win? And obviously Im not a hater, but its been a tough few months watching a lot of the priorities that Joe Biden ran on get shot to the ground by members of, you know, his own party. So whats the case the Democrats are trying to make to keep their jobs and, you know, expand their majorities? What happens for us in the best-case scenario?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, the best-case scenario in the Senate is that we get up to 52 senators, which is very mathematically possible because we have pickup opportunities in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Ron Johnson is running for reelection in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is quite a Republican primary. Dr. Oz, the head of one of the worlds largest hedge funds, whose remade himself into a MAGA candidatetheres a whole bunch of crazy stuff happening there. But if you get the 52 senators, we never have to say the words Manchin and Sinema again. In both the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Senate primary, the major candidates have said they would be for getting rid of the filibuster. So you can see a world where we get to 52 and could eliminate the filibuster. And if we still have the House to pass legislation, could deal with voting rights on day one.

Priyanka Aribindi: Got it! OK, you dont have to tell me twice. Good to know. OK, but thanks to Republicans and a couple Democratic senators, we do not have federal voting rights legislation as we head into this election. You wrote about this in your last issue of Message Box, your newsletter. But in the face of all these voting rights restrictions that are going on around the country, how do Democrats win elections now? Is there something specifically that we should be focused on? How is this possible?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, were going to have to win in an environment of voter suppression. That is the world were going to live in. There will continue to be some measure of court cases to try to push back on some of those efforts, but we have to recognize that the environment that Joe Biden won Georgia in, in 2020, is going to be tougher for Stacey Abrams and Raphael Warnock because of voter suppression. And its going to require hard work and organizing and getting people on the ground as soon as they can and educating voters about these new rules. And its going to be a ton of work. And its completely unfair and its probably unconstitutional and its wrong, but were going to have to live in that environment. But we also have to think not just about voter suppression, but about election sabotage, because we know that Republicans are running these 2022 elections to put themselves in a position to ensure that no matter what happens in the Electoral College or the popular vote in 2024, they will have the opportunity to install Donald Trump or whoever the Republican nominee is in the White House despite losing the election. Parts of the Freedom to Vote Act would have dealt with that. The best way to fight that is at the local level by electing governors, secretary of state candidates, and even in some states like in Arizona county recorders of deeds are the local election officials. And so Run For Something, a group that we have worked with the Crooked Media at lot, has been recruiting and training candidates to run in those races to try tobecause Republicans have been doing this. Theyre recruiting believers in the Big Lie to run up and down the ballot everywhere.

Priyanka Aribindi: Yikes.

Dan Pfeiffer: They are pouring money and resources into this because they know thats where political power is, and we have to do the same thing on our side.

Gideon Resnick: Youll be hearing more about all of this very soon. We are quite sure of that, but that is the latest for now. Its Friday WAD squad, and for todays temp check, we are back on our favorite beat, which is Sarah Palins battle with the New York Times by way of her battle with the novel coronavirus. So as we know, Palins defamation trial against the Times was postponed this Monday after it was revealed that she had tested positive for COVID. She had not gotten the vaccine, probably under the impression that she could outrun COVID aerosols on a snowboard. The story got even more interesting after the postponement, as it became clear that Palin had eaten inside the pricey Italian restaurant Elios in Manhattan on Saturdaythis is a place I was not familiar with quite honestly until this story

Priyanka Aribindi: Me either.

Gideon Resnick: Now I am deeply familiar with itleading many to question how she had managed to get around New York Citys COVID vaccine mandate.

Priyanka Aribindi: Yeah, it is not known if Palin had tested positive before or after her Saturday Elios trip. But since her diagnosis, she has continued to sample New Yorks finest restaurants, eating at a different fancy Italian place on Tuesday, though this time she was outside, and returning to Elios eat outside on Wednesday. Back to the original scene of the crime.

Gideon Resnick: What!? OK.

Priyanka Aribindi: So as we go to record, she is surely working through a tray of hot lasagna on a Manhattan sidewalk somewhere. Her new status as the Typhoid Mary of pasta places is so undeniable that even the mayors office has had to address it, with a spokesman for Eric Adams saying quote, We encourage any New Yorker who came into contact with Sarah Palin to get tested.

Gideon Resnick: Dear Lord.

Priyanka Aribindi: I mean, she comes with a warning. Now Gideon, you and I are not public health experts, so weve been reluctant to offer too much pandemic guidance in the past, but this seems like one topic where we are uniquely qualified to weigh in. So my question is how would you advise someone who is seated next to a COVID-positive Sarah Palin at a restaurant?

Gideon Resnick: Well, I would say its unfortunate that you are in this position, but I hope that you have a syringe on you, because if you put a syringe on the edge of the table in eyesight of Sarah Palin, she could be led to think that it may be a vaccine and she may not want to be near said vaccine and may very well leave. And that gives you the opportunity to finish your lovely Italian dinner. Priyanka, what do you think about all of this?

Priyanka Aribindi: Yeah, OK, if you find yourself in this scenario, you are seated next to COVID-positive Sarah Palin, one, get the fuck out of there. Two, question everything that has ever happened in your entire life to lead you to this point. What are you doing dining at the same place as her? Youre messing up somewhere.

Gideon Resnick: Its true.

Priyanka Aribindi: I hate to break it to you.

Gideon Resnick: Just like that, we have checked our temps. They are at a normal temperature because we dont have fevers from contracting the novel coronavirus near Sarah Palin at this time.

Priyanka Aribindi: Havent been in contact with Sarah Palin, so were all good.

Gideon Resnick: We can affirm that, and well be back after some ads.

[ad break]

See the original post here:
Supreme Courting The Voters with Dan Pfeiffer - Crooked

Within my lifespan I have witnessed democracys ebb and flow, from the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and bipartisan support for the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to the attack on our nations Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. I am as concerned today about democracys survival in the U.S. as anytime during my adult life.

I moved to Atlanta in 1973. Despite the progress achieved by the landmark legislation of the previous decade, it was a time when Black Americans, along with other moderates and liberals, were still grieving the death of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., whose 93rd birthday we recently commemorated. In addition to Kings death, we had lived through and mourned the assassinations of civil rights leader Medgar Evers, President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Sen. Robert Kennedy and Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton.

I began to feel hopeful that democracy might have a chance after Georgias governor, Jimmy Carter, was elected president in 1976. Among other encouraging steps, Carter appointed civil rights activist Andrew Young as U.N. ambassador and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee founder and leader John Lewis as associate director of the national volunteer organization ACTION. Over the ensuing decades, I remained relatively positive over the possibility that our republic could become a more inclusive, just and equitable nation, despite the limitations of what was achieved under the two terms of President Barack Obamas administration.

As I write today, I feel less sure that our democratic institutions, not to mention the idea of democracy itself, will survive what we are now going through.

Progressives and Democrats in Georgia and elsewhere did a superb job in 2020 getting voters to the polls, which resulted in historic wins for the presidency and the Senate. But, egged on by the former presidents big lie that he won, in 2021 19 states enacted at least 34 laws that will make it harder for Americans to vote, according to the Brennan Centers tally.

My skepticism over democracys survival is not based just on the cowardice on the part of some federal elected officials or their refusal to place the countrys interest over that of their party. I am equally disturbed over what state officials are doing, particularly those with safe Republican majorities, to make it more difficult for even conservative voters to cast a ballot. Nowhere am I hearing bipartisan opposition to these anti-democratic developments.

Even Georgias Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, both of whom refused to yield to pressure from the former president to overturn the 2020 Georgia election, have repeatedly defended the Republican-controlled Georgia General Assemblys voter-suppression laws on the grounds that they make for better voter integrity.

These are indeed scary times in the U.S., and things will not get better if all of us who see what is going down give in to fear. It is also important, however, to remember the five purple states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that voted blue in the 2020 elections, as well as the prospects this year for Democrats to win governorships now held by Republicans in states including Arizona, Georgia, Maryland and Massachusetts due to the strength of minority and blue-trending suburban votes. To protect those victories and support these possibilities, there are some things that I believe elected officials and the public in general can do to better safeguard democracy.

First, all people of good will must wake up and recognize that the country is in grave danger of being taken over by antidemocratic forces. Then, constituents should screen candidates for public office based on their steadfast support of Americas bedrock principles of democracy. This wont be easy in an alt-right environment where a large percentage of voters has had politicians prey upon their fears and feed them lies as to the reasons they are economically insecure.

Second, Republicans who are not afraid of or indebted to the former president must carefully weigh the cost of remaining silent against the dangers of losing democracy as weve known it and to what this loss could mean to the ruin of the American economy they depend on for wealth.

Finally, and unfairly, it will probably continue to fall on the backs of racial minorities, workers and women who have historically and persistently been denied the fruits of full participation in Americas democratic institutions to double down on their efforts in fighting racism, fascism, and voter suppression and subversion of all types.

By doing so, they might end up saving democracy not just for themselves but for us all.

Read more:
The Threat to Our Democracys Survival, and What We Can Do About It - Governing

A machine-learning expert and a psychology researcher/clinician may seem an unlikely duo. But MITs Rosalind Picard and Massachusetts General Hospitals Paola Pedrelli are united by the belief that artificial intelligence may be able to help make mental health care more accessible to patients.

In her 15 years as a clinician and researcher in psychology, Pedrelli says it's been very, very clear that there are a number of barriers for patients with mental health disorders to accessing and receiving adequate care. Those barriers may include figuring out when and where to seek help, finding a nearby provider who is taking patients, and obtaining financial resources and transportation to attend appointments.

Pedrelli is an assistant professor in psychology at the Harvard Medical School and the associate director of the Depression Clinical and Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). For more than five years, she has been collaborating with Picard, an MIT professor of media arts and sciences and a principal investigator at MITs Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health (Jameel Clinic) on a project to develop machine-learning algorithms to help diagnose and monitor symptom changes among patients with major depressive disorder.

Machine learning is a type of AI technology where, when the machine is given lots of data and examples of good behavior (i.e., what output to produce when it sees a particular input), it can get quite good at autonomously performing a task. It can also help identify patterns that are meaningful, which humans may not have been able to find as quickly without the machine's help. Using wearable devices and smartphones of study participants, Picard and Pedrelli can gather detailed data on participants skin conductance and temperature, heart rate, activity levels, socialization, personal assessment of depression, sleep patterns, and more. Their goal is to develop machine learning algorithms that can intake this tremendous amount of data, and make it meaningful identifying when an individual may be struggling and what might be helpful to them. They hope that their algorithms will eventually equip physicians and patients with useful information about individual disease trajectory and effective treatment.

We're trying to build sophisticated models that have the ability to not only learn what's common across people, but to learn categories of what's changing in an individuals life, Picard says. We want to provide those individuals who want it with the opportunity to have access to information that is evidence-based and personalized, and makes a difference for their health.

Machine learning and mental health

Picard joined the MIT Media Lab in 1991. Three years later, she published a book, Affective Computing, which spurred the development of a field with that name. Affective computing is now a robust area of research concerned with developing technologies that can measure, sense, and model data related to peoples emotions.

While early research focused on determining if machine learning could use data to identify a participants current emotion, Picard and Pedrellis current work at MITs Jameel Clinic goes several steps further. They want to know if machine learning can estimate disorder trajectory, identify changes in an individuals behavior, and provide data that informs personalized medical care.

Picard and Szymon Fedor, a research scientist in Picards affective computing lab, began collaborating with Pedrelli in 2016. After running a small pilot study, they are now in the fourth year of their National Institutes of Health-funded, five-year study.

To conduct the study, the researchers recruited MGH participants with major depression disorder who have recently changed their treatment. So far, 48 participants have enrolled in the study. For 22 hours per day, every day for 12 weeks, participants wear Empatica E4 wristbands. These wearable wristbands, designed by one of the companies Picard founded, can pick up information on biometric data, like electrodermal (skin) activity. Participants also download apps on their phone which collect data on texts and phone calls, location, and app usage, and also prompt them to complete a biweekly depression survey.

Every week, patients check in with a clinician who evaluates their depressive symptoms.

We put all of that data we collected from the wearable and smartphone into our machine-learning algorithm, and we try to see how well the machine learning predicts the labels given by the doctors, Picard says. Right now, we are quite good at predicting those labels.

Empowering users

While developing effective machine-learning algorithms is one challenge researchers face, designing a tool that will empower and uplift its users is another. Picard says, The question were really focusing on now is, once you have the machine-learning algorithms, how is that going to help people?

Picard and her team are thinking critically about how the machine-learning algorithms may present their findings to users: through a new device, a smartphone app, or even a method of notifying a predetermined doctor or family member of how best to support the user.

For example, imagine a technology that records that a person has recently been sleeping less, staying inside their home more, and has a faster-than-usual heart rate. These changes may be so subtle that the individual and their loved ones have not yet noticed them. Machine-learning algorithms may be able to make sense of these data, mapping them onto the individuals past experiences and the experiences of other users. The technology may then be able to encourage the individual to engage in certain behaviors that have improved their well-being in the past, or to reach out to their physician.

If implemented incorrectly, its possible that this type of technology could have adverse effects. If an app alerts someone that theyre headed toward a deep depression, that could be discouraging information that leads to further negative emotions.Pedrelli and Picard are involving real users in the design process to create a tool thats helpful, not harmful.

What could be effective is a tool that could tell an individual The reason youre feeling down might be the data related to your sleep has changed, and the data relate to your social activity, and you haven't had any time with your friends, your physical activity has been cut down. The recommendation is that you find a way to increase those things, Picard says. The team is also prioritizing data privacy and informed consent.

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms can make connections and identify patterns in large datasets that humans arent as good at noticing, Picard says. I think there's a real compelling case to be made for technology helping people be smarter about people.

Read more from the original source:
Deploying machine learning to improve mental health | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology - MIT News