Lily Salter's Blog, page 65

Peer rejection isn’t the culprit behind school shootings

AP

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Whenever a school shooting takes place, the focus often turns to the social life of the shooters, and people conclude that they suffered from some type of peer rejection or victimization.

For example, in the latest school shooting, reports have surfaced that Dimitrios Pagourtzis, the 17-year old school shooter in Santa Fe, Texas, may have experienced a form of peer rejection. Specifically, in the weeks prior to the shooting, one of his victims, Shana Fisher, publicly rejected his romantic advances in front of peers.

The well-known narrative that links school shootings and peer rejection has led to much soul-searching about whether school shootings could be prevented if peers were simply nicer or school climate were improved. But is the answer really this simple?

Peer rejection is a problem

Peer rejection refers to a range of problems that include being disliked and victimized by or isolated from peers. Developmental psychologists have amassed decades of research on peer rejection and its consequences. Those consequences include depression, loneliness, aggressive behaviors and academic problems.

Also, there is some evidence that peer rejection might lead to a vicious cycle in which kids who are rejected by peers exhibit problematic behaviors like aggression, which in turn lead to even more peer rejection.

All this is to say that peer rejection is linked to some negative outcomes in kids and it is important to prevent it. However, there are a couple of reasons why peer rejection is likely not the culprit behind school shootings.

A false link?

First, as many who have experienced the pains of growing up can verify, peer rejection is a relatively common experience. It is not unusual for developmental studies to find that close to 25 percent of kids have experienced it at some point. Despite the commonality of peer rejection, school shootings in the U.S. are still rare occurrences. And even though it may not seem like it, school shootings have been mostly declining since the 1990s.

Additionally, peer rejection is a recognized problem that is studied across countries, including Canada, Netherlands and China. The numbers of school shootings in these countries are negligible to non-existent. If peer rejection really was the culprit for school shootings, school shootings would be more common both in the U.S. and around the world.

Second, claims of peer rejection among school shooters are often contested. For example, a book on the Columbine school shooting claimed that the shooters were not bullied and isolated as initially described immediately following the event. Likewise, although Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was described as isolated, reports of classmates suggest that they tried to befriend him. In a more systematic attempt to link the phenomenon of school shootings with peer rejection, researchers conducted a case study of 15 U.S.-based school shootings. Although they found that shooters experienced some form of peer rejection in over 85 percent of the cases, this was accompanied by a range of additional risk factors. Those risk factors included a fascination with guns and psychological problems like depression. Therefore, while peer rejection might be common among shooters, it is not sufficient in itself to cause school shootings.

A more complex explanation

In reality, the cause of school shootings is likely far more complex than a simple case of a shooter being rejected by peers. Specifically, while peer rejection might be part of the profile of many school shooters, it is important to think about the range of environmental and individual factors that might contribute to school shootings.

Ecological frameworks offer a promising approach for highlighting the factors at these multiple levels that might be related to school shootings.

First, at the individual level, it is important to consider risk factors for school shootings. Those risk factors include things like depression and prior antisocial behavior.

Next, it is important to consider the immediate environments that surround school shooters and their interactions. It is here where peer rejection comes into play – but relationships with teachers, family members, and the broader community are also critical.

Finally, it is important to consider local, state and federal policies that influence the availability of firearms, as well as broad cultural attitudes toward the use of firearms. It is likely that these factors help explain school shootings. For this reason, any solution to school shootings must involve an approach that takes a range of factors at multiple levels into account.

Jennifer Watling Neal, Associate Professor, Michigan State University

Top Trending
Check out the major news stories of the day

How China’s winemakers succeeded (without stealing)

AP Photo/Elaine Thompson

Joint ventures between Western and Chinese companies are in the news over accusations — including those of President Donald Trump — that China uses them to steal intellectual property from foreign competitors in industries like cars and technology.

Less well known, however, are the joint ventures between French and Chinese winemakers, which offer a notable counterpoint to this narrative of international rivalry — or foreign exploitation, depending on your perspective.

Unlike for cars and electronics, there are no secret technologies in the making of wine. The millennia-old fermented drink is primarily a product of the land where the grapes are grown. What differentiates the best from the rest is not proprietary technology but experience in combining agriculture, science and art.

During research visits to China’s major wine regions — from beach resorts in Shandong and Ningxia’s rocky and arid landscapes to the lush mountains of Yunnan — we encountered a blend of local and foreign winemakers, farmers, wine scientists and local government officials, all committed to establishing local wines on the world stage.

Winemaking succeeds on the back of such international collaboration. And in our experience, it’s helping Chinese wine producers overcome their biggest obstacles to success.

No secret technology to steal

China is currently the sixth-largest wine producer, bottling 11.4 million hectoliters in 2016, just behind Australia’s 13 million. China is fifth in terms of consumption.

A few years ago, as we explained in The Conversation, China’s wine industry was focused on overcoming the rising cost of labor, dealing with difficult climates and improving grape quality.

Now, the biggest obstacles Chinese vintners have to overcome are the country’s image problem and growing competition from foreign wine. And that’s where the foreign ventures have proven so valuable.

China has long had a reputation for counterfeiting and food safety scandals. At the same time, the wine industry has become less protected from foreign competition after bilateral trade deals with countries such as Chile and Australia eliminated some tariffs. And although there are still such barriers in place with Europe (as well as the U.S.), Chinese wine lovers still drink a ton of French wine, despite the higher prices.

That has meant Chinese makers of premium wines have had to raise their game to compete with skilled foreign competitors. And perhaps ironically, some of those foreign rivals have been only too happy to share knowledge and skills.

Unlike for cars, making good wine doesn’t require proprietary technology. Any serious student can learn the techniques, whether they are traditional or cutting edge, by reading, going to school or finding a mentor. Becoming a good winemaker requires experimenting with a range of tried and true methods, both in the vineyard and the cellar. There is no secret recipe, only hard work and problem solving.

Such collaborative partnerships have been essential to helping China wine producers overcome the image problem and better compete.

Enter the French

It might surprise readers that French Cognac producer Remy Martin was one of the first Western companies to form a joint venture in China, in this case with the city of Tianjin in 1980 to set up a winery.

The French brought winemaking skills and, in exchange, got a foot in the door into a promising market for imported Cognac. The result, Dynasty Winery, is now one of the largest Chinese wine producers.

Remy and other Western companies brought not only skills but also their brand name. Chinese wine enthusiasts – vulnerable to the same stereotypes Westerners have — might question how good a wine from an unknown domestic company might be. But if is made by a famous French wine group, whose wines they enjoy, they might give it a chance.

While Dynasty is a mass market brand, other more recent French-Chinese partnerships have focused on developing premium wines. One involved LVMH and a state-owned enterprise in Ningxia, a poor province often hailed as China’s most promising wine region. In 2013, the French luxury conglomerate launched Chandon China, the latest offspring in the global Chandon family of sparkling wine.

Unlike in other sectors, such as clothing or electronics, Western winemakers are not in China to take advantage of low costs. Chinese wine is expensive to make, due to the rising cost of labor, and, in some regions, the need to bury the vines to protect them from cold winters and dig them out every spring.

Moreover, you can’t outsource the production of wine to another country. Champagne can only be made in the Champagne region of France. Napa Valley wine can only be made in the Napa Valley. If a wine is made in China, it becomes Chinese wine.

Soaring wine quality

The result, for Chinese winemakers, has been soaring quality.

Not long ago, really good Chinese wines were very hard to find. Mass market wine brands, like Changyu, Great Wall or Dynasty, were ubiquitous in supermarkets and convenience stores around the country. But most award-winning boutique wineries you read about in the media were too small or lacked marketing skills and deals with distributors that could put their wines in front of consumers.

Today the best boutique Chinese wines are far more available in major cities because the major distributors have begun to include more Chinese producers in their porfolios of primarily imported wines. This has made the best Chinese wines available in local shops frequented by wine enthusiasts, like Pudao Wines in Beijing and Shanghai, and on a few restaurant wine lists.

At a hotel restaurant in Guangzhou’s main airport in 2016, for example, we were able to order an glass of Pretty Pony, an Ningxia red by Kanaan winery — something we couldn’t have done just a year earlier.

Next stop: exports

So how easy is it to pick up a bottle of Pretty Pony at your local supermarket if you don’t live in China?

Although exports of Chinese wine are still quite low, at just US$1.2 million in 2016 compared with $15 million for Argentina and $3.2 billion for France, a growing number of supermarkets and wine shops in Europe and the U.S. are stocking some of the best Chinese wines, from Seattle and Melbourne to London and Madrid.

While it’s unlikely Chinese winemakers will be threatening their French peers anytime soon, they are now decidedly on the world’s wine map.

Cynthia Howson, Lecturer, University of Washington and Pierre Ly, Associate Professor, University of Puget Sound

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Top Trending
Check out the major news stories of the day

President Donald Trump pardons late heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson

Getty/Olivier Douliery/Lass

President Donald Trump on Thursday granted a posthumous pardon to late boxer Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion, who was convicted in 1913 of transporting a white woman across state lines, following the urging of actor Sylvester Stallone. The president referred to "Rocky" star as "Sly," boasting that the two have been friends for "a very long time."

Trump signed the pardon for Johnson during an Oval Office ceremony. Those who joined him included Stallone, current heavyweight champion Deontay Wilder, heavyweight champion Lenox Lewis and Johnson's great-great niece Linda Bell Haywood.

"Today, I've issued an executive grant of clemency – a full pardon – posthumously to John Arthur 'Jack' Johnson . . . the first African-American heavyweight champion of the world," Trump said.

The president called Johnson "a truly great fighter," who "had a tough life" and served 10 months in federal prison "for what many view as a racially-motivated injustice." Trump added that the conviction took place during a "period of tremendous racial tension in the U.S."

In the decades after Johnson was convicted, and as society became more enlightened, Johnson's case garnered significant national attention as a symbol of racial injustice in the American justice system.

"We have done something today that was very important, because we righted a wrong," Trump continued. "Jack Johnson was not treated fairly, and we have corrected that. And I'm very honored to have done it."

The boxing champion was convicted of violating the Mann Act, which made it illegal to transport women across state lines "for immoral purposes."

Johnson was sentenced to a year in prison in 1913, but he fled the country for several years. He returned in 1920 to serve his sentence.

"He was treated very rough, very tough," Trump said Thursday as he signed what he referred to as an "a full pardon" for Johnson.

The president pointed out that bipartisan requests for Johnson's pardon date back years. Nonetheless, no previous president had been willing to grant one. Politicians and celebrities including current Sen. John McCain, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Stallone and filmmaker Ken Burns have advocated for Johnson's pardon.

Congress also unanimously approved a resolution in 2009 calling for the champion's pardon. In 2013, a century after Johnson's conviction, Congress reintroduced the resolution.

Trump also took a jab at former President Barack Obama, who rebuffed pardoning Johnson, in part due to allegations of domestic violence against women, according to the New York Times.

In April, Trump had tweeted that he was considering granting a pardon to Johnson.

Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations were great, his life complex and controversial. Others have looked at this over the years, most thought it would be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2018

"Sylvester Stallone called me with the history of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations were great, his life complex and controversial," Trump wrote in a tweet at the time. "Others have looked at this over the years, most thought it would be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!"

Facebook opts to label political ads — but experts say their plan is deeply flawed

Getty/Salon

Just in time for primary election season and ahead of the 2018 midterms, Facebook announced Thursday it will start labeling political and issue ads on the social network — a move intended to prevent another foreign propaganda situation whereby bad actors purchase political ads intended to influence elections.

Fulfilling a promise it made last year, the social media giant revealed a new labeling system, which will show users who paid for a political ad and demographic information for audiences who were targeted by it.

Advertisers will also need to register with Facebook by "confirming their identity and location" with the company.

"Starting today, all election-related and issue ads on Facebook and Instagram in the U.S. must be clearly labeled – including a 'Paid for by' disclosure from the advertiser at the top of the ad," said Rob Leathern, Director of Product Management at Facebook. "This will help ensure that you can see who is paying for the ad – which is especially important when the Page name doesn't match the name of the company or person funding the ad."

Political ads will now come with an explicit disclosure, noting who paid for the ad.  Users who click on any of those disclosures will be able to visit a special archive page for the ad, where they can see other ads bought by the advertiser as well as how much money the advertiser paid for the campaign and the audiences it targeted.

Users from around the world can also visit the page "Political Content Ads" to browse any political or issue ads an advertiser has run in the United States for up to seven years — a period the company decided on to ensure it covers a full Senate cycle of six years. The company plans to launch similar labeling and archiving features to other countries around the world in the coming months.

This change is in line with Facebook's recent attempts to improve user engagement and raise public trust.

The social networking behemoth has come under fire for virally spreading misinformation, harboring a plethora of fake accounts and, most recently, breaches of trust — particularly the revelation that Cambridge Analytica, an election consultancy used by President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, had accessed personal data from as many as 87 million users without their knowledge. In public testimony, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed regret over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and tried to sell Facebook as a communitarian tool rather than an advertising company that profits off monetizing its users personal data.

The recent data scandal wiped away tens of billions of dollars from Facebook’s market value, sparked scrutiny from politicians of every stripe, and even prompted public discourse over the once-unthinkable notion that Mark Zuckerberg should step down as CEO and chairman of the company. It also reignited long-simmering questions about the menace it poses to the world’s privacy, civil discourse and domestic democratic institutions.

Zuckerberg faced two days of questions on Capitol Hill about Facebook’s responsibilities to users and data collection practices in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica revelations.

"We think these features set a new standard for transparency in visual advertising, and they're part of our broader election integrity work," Leathern said. He then noted that Facebook might not catch every political ad that is not properly labeled, and said Facebook encourages users to report improperly labeled ads. Facebook will then review them, he said, and if it turns out that the advertiser violated Facebook's political advertising policy, it "will be prevented from running election-related and issue ads until they complete the authorization process."

"This is the tool that makes it easier for you to find problems, and that's something that we want," he continued. "We invite you to report any ad so we get better, faster."

Some people have argued that getting rid of political ads on Facebook is the only sure-fire way of protecting against foreign election meddling, while others have made the case that barring political ads on Facebook would unfairly favor incumbent politicians and candidates with deep pockets.

Digital advertising is usually more affordable than television or print ads, providing less well-funded politicians, NGOs, researchers and journalists a relatively economical way to get their message out.

Facebook's new ad labeling perhaps extends beyond ads that are shown on TV, as it plans to label issue-based ads as political in addition to ads from candidates and campaigns. The social network is using a list of 20 wide-ranging issues to classify political ads. The list includes issues like education and guns, but also ads that make political statements about health, taxes and values — some of which have messaging that might be difficult to classify as explicitly political.

"One of the important considerations around regulating and restricting political ads is taking steps to prevent those rules from inadvertently sweeping up non-partisan journalistic content," said Parker Higgins, Director of Special Projects at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "Unfortunately, some of the more simplistic heuristics for categorizing political ads include those kinds of stories—stories that can change the outcome of elections, but only through creating a more informed population."

"Facebook of course has the right to bar any kinds of ads it wants, but lots of media outlets have found Facebook advertising worthwhile and it would be frustrating to see that tossed aside in the name of a blanket ban," Higgins added.

Norman Shamas, an independent cyber security consultant, said with Facebook, "it all comes down to trust."

"The efficacy of ads and information campaigns relies heavily on the audience’s understanding of media literacy, algorithm literacy," Shamas said. "Facebook's role in this is that they aren’t transparent about algorithm design and how they relate to targeted ads or even recognition of information campaigns."

"Transparency around what algorithms they have, what data they use, and whether they are implementing the algorithms (and why/why not) is important," Shamas added.

Felicia Cravens, a Texan who runs a Facebook page called Unfakery that helps track down fraudulent accounts, said is concerned about the list of items Facebook is considering "political" and "how they could possibly intend to fairly and equitably review the massive amounts of political advertising that will be purchased for candidates and issues at all levels."

"Too often when Facebook is confronted with a problem, they apply a patch or a one-size-fits-all solution that they inevitably have to walk back later," Cravens said. "This leaves many people confused and unsure which policies are in place at any given time."

"With something as important as political ads, Facebook again seems to be bumbling around, trying to find a workable solution that will scale to a wide variety of scenarios," Cravens added. "And given that so much of American life is becoming politicized, things that wouldn't be seen as political before now will be."

As plastic straw bans become mainstream, some fear pushback from corporations

Shutterstock

Plastic straws may be sucking the life out of our ecosystems.

Videos and images of tortoises with plastic straws stuck in their nostrils went viral in the past year, while high-profile conferences like the World Economic Forum say there might be more plastic than fish (in terms of weight) in the oceans by 2050. Plastic straws were among the top 10 items collected during the 2017 International Coastal Cleanup Day. In turn, some conservationists and policymakers have taken a keen interest in the demise of the disposable straw.

Case in point: the city of San Francisco, which has set environmental precedents for the country before (such as with their plastic bag ban), is proposing legislation to ban plastic straws in order to reduce litter in the city’s streets. The proposed initiative would prohibit single-use plastic straws and other plastic foodware such as plastic stir sticks, plastic toothpicks, and plastic splash sticks. The legislation also aims to eliminate persistent toxic fluorinated chemicals from foodware products.

If passed, the ordinance would take effect on July 1, 2019.

"Here in San Francisco, this is quite literally the last plastic straw,” San Francisco Supervisor Katy Tang, who proposed the legislation, said while announcing the news. “We need to step up and do something about our wasteful daily habits when there are other alternatives.”

“Millions of plastic straws are discarded annually and add to the tremendous waste in our society,” Supervisor Ahsha Safaí added. “We need to change people's behavior and provide a reusable option.”

It is worth noting San Francisco is not the only city considering this ordinance—or has already enacted a ban. New York City is eyeing similar legislation. Malibu, Calif., has already banned restaurants from handing out plastic straws and stirrers. Seattle is set to ban plastic straws and utensils. Across the pond, the United Kingdom is also gearing up to prohibit single-use plastics, such as straws. Institutions are following suit, too: Dignity Health has removed plastic straws and stirrers from its 39 hospitals, specifically in their cafeterias (there is an exception for patients).

The idea that consumers need to curb their consumption habits — or that the state needs to nudge them to — has long been part of the ongoing discourse in modern environmentalism. In a way, it is partly a result of consumers being pigeonholed by the oil and gas companies, the conglomerates who are manufacturing plastic. Yet as progressive cities move toward a plastic straw ban, one that will undoubtedly upset some interest groups — McDonald’s has reportedly pushed back already — it raises questions about civic responsibility and corporate responsibility. At what point do we share the responsibility of shifting our behavior with the corporations who manufacture the straws? What happened to systemic change rather than consumer behavior?

Writing in the Guardian, Martin Lukacs eloquently described this incongruity. In his piece “Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals,” Lukacs notes that according to the Carbon Majors Database, 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of the world’s carbon emissions since 1988. Keeping in that in mind, are consumers bans — rather than industrial regulation — really the answer?

Nicole Kozlowski, the Rise Above Plastics Program Vice Lead of the Surfrider Foundation in San Francisco, said these types of bans do make a positive impact on the environment, yet said that bans are not the one-size-fits-all solution to reducing plastic consumption.

“While these bans are seen as the weight falling on the consumers’ shoulders, it is more of an educational tool,” Kozlowski explained, who is also the co-founder of Wisdom Supply Co, a company that provides sustainable school supplies to teachers. “These statewide bans and legislators act as wide-sweeping public awareness about an issue that not everybody has the opportunity to learn about, and with a material like plastic straws that can’t be recycled, they are clogging storms drains, littering city streets and costing taxpayers in California millions of dollars to clean up and they are ending up on our shores and beaches.”

As Kozlowski explained, the ban is not a ban on straws—instead, it is part of the ongoing effort to prohibit plastic.

“The issue with plastic is that there is too much of it in the system and there is nowhere for it to go,” Kozlowski told Salon.

Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste, echoed Kozlowski’s sentiments about how plastic-straw bans are not about the straws, but about the plastic.

“While reducing the number of one-time-use plastic straws generated daily is an important objective, Supervisor Tang’s proposed ordinance is much more comprehensive than ‘banning straws,” said Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste. “Supervisor Tang’s proposed ordinance would update and expand San Francisco’s already successful local ordinance targeting disposal plastic food service ware. The measure will phase-out the use of most common disposable plastic utensils in favor of recyclable, compostable or reusable items.”

According to a study in the journal Science Advances, an estimated 8300 million metric tons of virgin plastics, those that have not been recycled, have been produced to date. By  2015, approximately 6300 metric tons of plastic waste had been generated; only 9 percent of which had been recycled. Twelve percent was incinerated, and 79 percent was collected in landfills or the natural environment. Plastic is a byproduct of fracking for oil, and as a natural gas, overwhelming evidence suggests it is largely responsible for Earth’s changing climate.

Kozlowski said what it boils down to is a fight against the world’s most powerful companies.

“Oil and gas companies are putting more effort into making more plastic products because they earn a quarter of their profits from the plastic production,” she said. “It is in their best interest to make plastic products cheap.”

These companies are reportedly receiving more investments. According to a report by the Center for International Environmental Law, in April 2016, the American Chemistry Council revealed the chemical industry will spend over $164 billion on 264 new facilities or expansion projects in the United States by 2023.

While consumers will be forced to forgo their straws, the companies manufacturing plastics—or the chemicals needed—are seemingly expanding their operations. Advocates and policymakers are hopeful that consumers bans will have a bottom-up approach to eventually shaking up the corporations that need it.

“I believe that the ban itself will force manufacturers to change their business model – especially as San Francisco is not the only jurisdiction with such proposed legislation,” Tang told Salon. “Manufacturers will need to get on board with the new regulations and a cultural shift in single-use plastic foodware.”

When women age without apology: “What would Virginia Woolf do?” is a rally cry for women over 40

Elena Seibert

If you look at advertising, TV shows, movies, magazines, and pretty much every form of cultural expression, women are supposed to be sexy and young. As long as we fit a certain silhouette, our nubile, fertile young flesh is adored, desired and celebrated.

And when we stop looking young due to the anatomical (and gravitational) realities of aging? Well, then. It’s best that we either try to appear as young as possible via artificial means — or disappear from relevance.

But here’s the thing: We don’t disappear. And even when we do everything we can to stay fit and look young on the outside, be it plastic surgery, extreme skin care regimens, or artfully applied cosmetics, many of us are still forced to confront the transformations happening on the inside--and the way the people in our lives respond to those transformations (typically by pretending they aren’t happening). I almost didn’t interview Nina because I thought as someone in my 40s a book about aging was certainly not relevant to me, but the fact is we're all aging. Every day. And it turns out there is a lot to talk about as you peer over that psychological hill.

Hormonal changes. Marital problems and infidelity. Dating after divorce. Finding sensuality in your post-multiple-pregnancy, middle-aged physique. Having regrets about taking a career break to raise kids. Cosmetic procedures. These are things that we rarely talk about in public or even privately with our friends, but we need to talk about it with someone. The question is, who?

In 2015, author Nina Collins created a secret Facebook group. It was a place where she could seek the advice of her friends who had already experienced perimenopause and other physical changes related to aging. Friends invited friends and now the group, called “What Would Virginia Woolf Do?” (WWVD) has grown to a 17,000 member community in which women share — and sometimes overshare — the challenges and fears and triumphs of life over 40.

“It's been a very interesting organic experience of really smart women over 40 wanting to talk about where they are in life,” Nina told me in our recent interview for my podcast "Inflection Point." “It started as a place to talk about health stuff and now it's . . . very much a place where we talk about who we want to be and the second half of our lives, basically.”

Clearly Nina Collins has broken the ice for a conversation that women over 40 have been desperate to have: one in which we confront our shame, embrace our imperfections, honor what makes us unique, and benefit from our collective wisdom so that we can lift each other up.

Sounds like feminism to me.

The question is, why do we need a private online group to make these conversations happen? Why don’t we talk about the realities of middle age womanhood with the same frankness and positivity that we do about puberty and pregnancy? And what happens when we stop treating aging as a shameful secret and honor it as a time of transformation, wisdom, and self-actualization?

Nina has captured the essence of this group and her own reflections on “aging” in her new book, "What Would Virginia Woolf Do? And Other Questions I Ask Myself As I Attempt To Age Without Apology." Listen to our conversation here on "Inflection Point."

And when you’re done, come on over to The Inflection Point Society, our Facebook group of everyday activists who seek to make extraordinary change through small, daily actions.

Subscribe to "Inflection Point" to get more stories of how women rise up right in your feed on Apple Podcasts, RadioPublic, Stitcher and NPROne.

Moses Farrow defends his father Woody Allen, claims Mia Farrow abused her kids

AP/YouTube

Moses Farrow, the adopted son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, has been one of the filmmaker's chief defenders in recent years. Allen, who was accused by his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was seven, has faced renewed scrutiny in the era of #MeToo, with several former collaborators expressing remorse for working with him.

But in an expansive, explosive blog post published Wednesday, Moses affirmed his support for his father and dismissed the sexual assault allegations. He also accused his mother of inflicting mental, verbal and physical abuse on him and his siblings. And Moses shared his own recollection of the August day in 1992, when Dylan says her father sexually abused her.

"It was important to my mother to project to the world a picture of a happy blended household of both biological and adopted children, but this was far from the truth," Moses wrote. "I’m sure my mother had good intentions in adopting children with disabilities from the direst of circumstances, but the reality inside our walls was very different. It pains me to recall instances in which I witnessed siblings, some blind or physically disabled, dragged down a flight of stairs to be thrown into a bedroom or a closet, then having the door locked from the outside. She even shut my brother Thaddeus, paraplegic from polio, in an outdoor shed overnight as punishment for a minor transgression."

Moses claims that of this abuse, "Soon-Yi was her most frequent scapegoat." He said that Farrow also brainwashed them constantly, "coaching, drilling, scripting, and rehearsing" stories until they matched what she wanted to hear. And he alleges that this is what happened with Dylan and her accusation against Allen.

Moses said that on Aug. 4, 1992, Farrow instructed him to watch Allen closely. He said, "Along with five kids, there were three adults in the house, all of whom had been told for months what a monster Woody was. None of us would have allowed Dylan to step away with Woody, even if he tried."

Moses rehashes the investigations into Allen, saying, "Mia's accusation was fully investigated by two separate agencies and charges were never brought. Mia reached the end of the legal runway after it was determined that the abuse never occurred." And he compared Allen and Dylan's accusation to the allegations against now outed sexual predators:

In this time of #MeToo, when so many movie heavyweights have faced dozens of accusations, my father has been accused of wrongdoing only once, by an enraged ex-partner during contentious custody negotiations. During almost 60 years in the public eye, not one other person has come forward to accuse him of even behaving badly on a date, or acting inappropriately in any professional situation, let alone molesting a child.

Moses does not address the claim from actress Mariel Hemingway, who says Allen tried to seduce her when she was a teenager. And according to Vanity Fair, Moses' charged blog post ignores important facts from the child molestation allegation, case and trial that are frankly damning. Investigative reporter Maureen Orth, who has written about it for over 25 years, curated "10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation" in 2014, which counters some of Moses' critical points.

Allen and Moses paint Dylan's accusation as crafted by her mother for retribution for Allen beginning a sexual relationship with Farrow's adopted daughter Soon Yi. "Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse," Orth wrote. "Her lawyer told her on August 5, 1992, to take the seven-year-old Dylan to a pediatrician, who was bound by law to report Dylan’s story of sexual violation to law enforcement and did so on August 6."

Also, Allen has clung to the isolation of the single claim against him in his lifetime, which Moses reiterates. But Orth wrote that Farrow's instructions for Allen to never be left alone with Dylan was communicated to Moses, babysitters, etc, because "Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public."

Further, the judge who granted Farrow full custody of Moses, Dylan and Ronan found Allen's behavior toward Dylan to be "grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her," Orth reported.

Moses ended his post indicating some sympathy for his sister Dylan. "Like you, I believe in the power of speaking out," he wrote. "I have broken my silence about the abuse inflicted by our mother. My healing began only after getting away from her. And what she has done to you is unbearable. I wish you peace, and the wisdom to understand that devoting your life to helping our mother destroy our father’s reputation is unlikely to bring you closure in any kind of lasting way."

Both Dylan and her brother Ronan addressed Moses' post on Twitter, attributing it to deflection. "My brother is a troubled person," Dylan wrote. "I am so sorry he's doing this."

All I have to say with regard to the latest regarding my brother. pic.twitter.com/8WVAXOMKZV

— Dylan Farrow (@RealDylanFarrow) May 23, 2018

Ronan defended the parenting of Farrow and concluded, "I believe my sister."

All I’m going to say about efforts to deflect from my sister‘s allegations: pic.twitter.com/IRrj5fzMqV

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) May 24, 2018

Meghan McCain melts down after audience and co-hosts turn against her on NFL protests

YouTube/The View

This article originally appeared on Raw Story

“The View” host Meghan McCain sputtered in frustration after the rest of her co-hosts — and the audience — turned against her over NFL player protests against racism and police brutality.

Team owners voted Wednesday to ban on-field protests, after President Donald Trump personally attacked players and threatened to change tax laws that benefit the NFL, and co-host Sunny Hostin said critics don’t understand the purpose of the demonstrations.

“This protest is not about the national anthem, this protest is not about the flag,” Hostin said.

“Think about the Milwaukee Bucks player, Sterling Brown, who was tased for doing nothing by the police,” she added. “This country terrorizes African-American men at a bigger rate than white men. If I want to kneel because I don’t think America is as great as she can be, I don’t think America has lived up to the promise of the flag, that means I am just as American as you are when you stand in homage to your parents’ service.”

Co-host Joy Behar pointed out that Trump had rarely seemed angrier than when he called out former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whose career ended over his silent protest — and McCain justified the president’s rage.

“It’s a very emotional issue,” McCain said. “I can’t analyze his anger in different places, he has been angry and irrational in a lot of different places.”

McCain explained that her views on the protests differed from her tablemates, but she clung to poll numbers showing most Americans agreed with her.

“I disagree with everyone on this table,” she said. “I would never be okay with somebody not saluting the flag. By the way, 72 percent of Americans, according to Reuters, said that they thought Kaepernick’s behavior was unpatriotic.”

Hostin cut in to say the vast majority of black Americans called Kaepernick a patriot, and McCain immediately lashed out.

“Can I just finish what I’m saying,” McCain said, as the audience erupted into applause to support Hostin.

“I’m still talking!” McCain shouted at the studio audience. “I’m still talking, I’m still speaking.”

Behar reminded the panelists that everyone got a turn to speak, but at that point host Whoopi Goldberg ushered the show into a commercial break.

Top Trending
Check out the major news stories of the day

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was brought down by a Russian missile: report

AP Photo/Vincent Thian

International investigators have again concluded that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down on July 17, 2014 while flying over eastern Ukraine, was hit by a Russian missile.

The airplane crash killed 298 people including 283 passengers and immediately prompted international outcry. Although Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement in the crash, the Dutch Safety Board concluded in 2015 that it had been downed by a Buk missile brought in from Russia on the previous day, according to the BBC. One year later, the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) claimed that it had "irrefutable evidence" that the missile had been fired from a field controlled by pro-Russia fighters after being brought in from Russian territory. The team that issued this report included members from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine.

On Thursday, JIT doubled down on its assertion, declaring that the missile had originated from a western Russian unit and fired from Ukrainian territory held by pro-Russia rebels. One Dutch official from JIT, Wilbert Paulissen, told reporters that "all the vehicles in a convoy carrying the missile were part of the Russian armed forces." He specified that the missile had come from Russia's 53rd anti-aircraft brigade in Kursk.

Russia's defense ministry responded by repeating what they have said since 2014: they had nothing to do with it.

"Not a single anti-aircraft missile system from the Russian Federation has ever crossed the Russia-Ukraine border," proclaimed the defense ministry in Moscow.

JIT's announcement was offered two days after some family members of those killed on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 published an open letter in the Russian news site Novaya Gazeta, according to NPR. In that letter, they made it clear that while they do not blame the Russian people, they do blame the Russian state.

Like all who have suffered the violent death of people we love, we are tempted to respond with hate. But we have to separate ordinary Russian people from the individuals responsible - the chain of command that led to the shooting down of MH17. Most of us don’t know Russian people well. Hate and distrust come partly from ignorance and when we know more of a person’s story, that can change how we see things. We know that the Russian people have a right to thrive, as did our loved ones. Still, we struggle. If we are able to change it will take time. But we know that giving in to hatred and bitterness would consume us and, unchecked among the nations, it will destroy human life on this planet.

It is easier when we remember we are all human beings and what we have in common. Some of us saw the faces of Russian families after Metrojet Flight 9268 was bombed and crashed over Egypt in October 2015, killing all 224 people on board. They were overwhelmed with grief, struggling to comprehend what had happened. We understand that disbelief, the horror of your loved one’s lives being taken violently and without warning. If ever we met those families perhaps we could start a conversation, for we would already know a central truth about each other’s lives.

No, we do not blame the Russian people for what happened. We are not against you. We hold the Russian state and its leaders as ultimately responsible for the deaths of our family members. All the credible evidence points in that direction. It has already been a long wait for us, but sometime in the future the five nation Joint Investigation Team will deliver its final report and people will be named. Then it will be up to the appointed court in the Netherlands to carefully weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion about which individuals were responsible.

Top Trending
Check out the major news stories of the day!

Amid affordable housing dispute, conservatives seek a home in Chicago

AP

This article originally appeared on ProPublica.

When news broke last week that a proposed affordable housing development on Chicago’s Northwest Side had likely been put on hold, Ammie Kessem, a Republican candidate for state representative, vowed on Facebook that it wasn’t the end of the story. Democrats, Kessem wrote, would pay for pushing the plan — including 45th Ward Ald. John Arena, its chief sponsor, and Kessem’s opponent, state Rep. Robert Martwick.

Martwick, she wrote, “cannot continue to hide on this subject. . . . The people are going to hold you accountable for it come November.”

Kessem’s opposition to building the affordable housing complex in her neighborhood has been a central part of her campaign for the Illinois House. And she’s had help.

Over the last year and a half — as the proposal has stirred up angry discussions about government aid for the poor, racial segregation and housing density — Kessem and other foes of the proposed development at 5150 N. Northwest Highway have received contributions and a promotional boost from a cluster of groups tied to the Illinois Policy Institute, arguably the most influential conservative organization in the state.

Through its long-running campaign for smaller government, lower taxes and increased transparency, the nonprofit think tank holds great sway with many Republicans and even some Democrats. But the institute and affiliated groups have historically focused most of their efforts on moving policies in Springfield to the right.

Amid the controversy over affordable housing, however, some institute leaders and their allies have worked to build a conservative movement on the city’s Northwest Side. Their efforts show how they and other right-leaning groups have moved money through nonprofits and political action committees — and publicized candidates and ideas on their own news sites — to advance their agendas.

Kessem didn’t respond to interview requests. But she and her allies have said they’re tired of being ignored by the Democrats who have long dominated city, county and state government.

To Democrats and many residents, though, the conservative groups are exploiting fears about affordable housing to further their political interests and build a following in traditionally Democratic Chicago.

“The principles they’re espousing are tea party, very conservative,” said Martwick. “Why they think they’ve got a chance to establish a foothold on the Northwest Side, I don’t know, unless these are just steps to a longer game.”

Founded in 2002, the institute became a force among state policymakers by producing research and essays calling for smaller government. As a charitable organization — a type of nonprofit known as a 501(c)(3), after the relevant section of the federal tax code — it is prohibited from “directly or indirectly” participating in political campaigns.

Starting with the 2012 elections, some institute leaders began funding campaigns after a series of transactions involving other organizations and political action committees they formed, records show.

One of those groups was the Government Accountability Alliance, a nonprofit that shares office space and leaders with the institute. In 2015 and 2016 — the most recent years tax records are available — the alliance gave more than $3 million total to the Illinois Opportunity Project, a nonprofit also founded by institute leaders and employees, including CEO John Tillman and senior fellow Dan Proft.

The Illinois Opportunity Project, in turn, poured more than $1.7 million into political campaigns and committees across the state, according to election board records. Because the Illinois Opportunity Project is what’s known as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit under the tax code, it can contribute to political campaigns as long as most of its resources are devoted to its social welfare mission. According to its tax returns, that mission consists of education and advocacy promoting free market principles.

In addition to leading the institute, Tillman is the longtime CEO and director of the Government Accountability Alliance. He said the alliance had nothing to do with the political contributions.

“GAA donated to IOP to fund their general operations,” he wrote in response to questions. “What IOP then did independent of that with their funding is a separate matter over which GAA had no control.”

Tillman was also on the board of the Illinois Opportunity Project through 2016. He didn’t answer a question about his role, and current leaders of the Illinois Opportunity Project did not respond to messages.

Some of the money from the Illinois Opportunity Project went to a pair of Northwest Side candidates for the Chicago City Council in 2015. John Garrido, a Chicago police officer running for alderman of the city’s 45th Ward, received $2,000, while Anthony Napolitano, a former police officer and firefighter vying to be 41st Ward alderman, got $3,000.

In a part of the city that’s home to thousands of government workers, including police officers, both touted their public service credentials and described themselves as independent-minded Republicans, though Chicago elections are nonpartisan. While the city is a longtime Democratic stronghold, far Northwest Side voters have sent Republicans to the City Council and General Assembly before, including the only current GOP state legislator from Chicago.

In 2016, the Illinois Opportunity Project also loaned $325,000 to Liberty Principles, a political action committee founded and run by Proft. Liberty Principles spent more than $10.5 million in races across the state in 2015 and 2016, including about $118,000 backing Garrido. Proft didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The 2015 results were mixed. In the 41st Ward, Napolitano upset an ally of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s. But for the second time in four years, Garrido lost to John Arena, a self-described progressive who received significant backing from unions and liberal donors.

The race was bitter, and ill will lasted long after the votes were counted.

Among other issues, Arena’s critics were unhappy about how he handled the long-dormant site on Northwest Highway, where they say he scuttled a plan in 2016 to replace a vacant building with a new storage facility after work was already underway—and then was less than candid about it.

“It was like, ‘How in the world was this guy allowed to get away with all this stuff?’” Garrido said. “That’s where it started for us.”

On Jan. 25, 2017, Arena unveiled a new plan for the site that would include a storage facility as well as a seven-story, 100-unit apartment building. Up to 30 of the apartments would be set aside for households using Section 8 vouchers to subsidize their rent, and another 50 would be priced to be “affordable” for lower-income renters, with veterans and the disabled getting preference. The other 20 units would rent at market rates.

Arena said the development was consistent with his goals to add density and bring affordable housing to a neighborhood that lacked it.

“We have a responsibility in this city to build it in every community,” he said.

Residents in mostly white neighborhoods on the Far Northwest Side have long fought subsidized housing. The communities of Jefferson Park, Edison Park, Forest Glen and Norwood Park had a total of 20 public housing units for families in 2017, just one more than they had in 2000, when the Chicago Housing Authority began dismantling its high-rise developments with promises to help residents live in less segregated areas. That’s one of the lowest concentrations in the city; many other neighborhoods have dozens or even hundreds of units.

Arena announced that he would hold a community meeting to discuss the proposal. But some area residents didn’t wait for the meeting — or further details about the plan — before they weighed in. Thousands signed a petition opposing it.

Among those who jumped into the fray was Matt Podgorski, the Republican leader of the neighboring 39th Ward, who had already been organizing a group called the Northwest Side GOP Club in the four wards in that far corner of the city.

“This development is terrible for the neighborhood,” he posted on Facebook. “It’ll be occupied by people from other neighborhoods, overcrowding the public schools. Property values will go down; crime will go up. Let’s absolutely shut this project down. It is nothing more than a housing project disguised as something else. This is left-wing social engineering right in our backyard.”

The day before the community meeting, Podgorski filled out paperwork with the state election board to register the Northwest Side GOP Club as a political action committee. The club also reported a contribution for the first time: $2,000 from Proft’s Liberty Principles PAC.

In an email, Podgorski said the Northwest Side GOP Club had received about 20 other donations by then, but they were so small he didn’t have to report them. He declined to comment further.

The community meeting, on Feb. 9, 2017, was tense. Outside the church, protesters railed against public and subsidized housing, chanting “No Section 8!”

Inside, a long line of residents expressed concerns and vented their anger to Arena and representatives of the site’s developers, Full Circle Communities. Garrido, Arena’s two-time election opponent, said the proposed building was too tall for a neighborhood mostly made up of single-family homes. Kessem, noting that she was a Chicago Police Officer and member of the Northwest Side GOP Club, said she worried the development would bring crime and make her children unsafe. Others raised the specter of former public housing complexes like Cabrini-Green.

“You sold our neighborhood out!” a woman yelled at Arena.

Garrido said Arena and his media team then set out to vilify opponents of the development as racist, though he said most were upset about the size of Arena’s plan and his “sneaky” style.

“It was very calculated that they were making this into a racial thing, and making it an affordable housing issue,” Garrido said. While it’s true that some residents were afraid of public housing, he said, “the majority of the community is legitimately concerned about the density issue. I know people say that’s our dog whistle, but it’s the truth.”

After the community meeting, websites called Chicago City Wire and North Cook News began weighing in on the controversy, portraying Arena as an out-of-touch liberal while trumpeting Podgorski’s group as a defender of hardworking residents.

“Northwest Side GOP staunchly opposes Arena’s proposed housing project,” an article on the North Cook News site declared on Feb. 20, 2017.

Arena “believes that you can’t get people out of poverty so it’s up to government to help people and subsidize their lifestyle,” Amanda Biela, identified as the GOP club’s press secretary, told the publication.

Like Chicago City Wire and 27 other sites with identical designs — and often overlapping content — North Cook News is published by Local Government Information Services. Proft is the company’s president, according to its registration with the state, and Brian Timpone, the owner of other hyperlocal websites and media products, is his partner. Timpone did not respond to a request for comment.

The sites have a conservative political bent, spelled out on their “About” pages: “We believe in limited government, in the constructive role of the free market and in the rights of citizens to choose the size and scope of their government and the role it should play in their society.”

Arena said he’s heard from constituents concerned about details of the housing development, including its density, and has responded by making changes. But he said supporters of the plan “feel victimized and bullied.”

“When these fights happen, the folks who have an agenda, they know how to play the game,” Arena said. “They know how to stoke fear and intimidate.”

The campaign against the development had an undeniable impact. In September, after citing community opposition and “soft” support from the city, the Illinois Housing Development Authority declined to award tax credits for the development, records show. Without them, financing didn’t add up. Arena and the developers eventually cut the number of units in the plan to 75, but last week IHDA again turned down their application. Nevertheless, Arena has vowed to press on.

Meanwhile, Proft’s websites and conservative allies on the Northwest Side worked to keep the affordable housing controversy alive as candidates were lined up for state legislative races — even though the development fell under the city’s authority.

In August 2017, Chicago City Wire posted articles that quoted critics of Martwick who accused him of “hiding” on the issue.

A few weeks later, Kessem and Biela — both members of the Northwest Side GOP Club — formed campaign committees to run for the Illinois House in neighboring districts. The paperwork for both committees listed Podgorski as the chairman.

By December, the Illinois Opportunity Project made the first of a series of contributions to Kessem and Biela to pay for political consulting.

And in February, just five weeks before the primaries, Chicago police officer Jeffrey La Porte formed a committee and jumped into the Democratic primary against Martwick.

It was no secret who was backing La Porte. Less than a week later, Proft’s Liberty Principles PAC paid for a mailing attacking Martwick. And soon after that, La Porte reported an $11,000 contribution from the Illinois Opportunity Project, accounting for more than two-thirds of all the funds he reported raising.

La Porte spent most of the money on more campaign mailers. Some attacked Martwick for capitalizing on his political connections to make money as a lawyer and consultant. But at least one showed a picture of the proposed development at 5150 N. Northwest Highway. “Robert Martwick and John Arena support the 5150 development plan,” the mailer said. “Our community does not support extreme density!”

Martwick won the primary anyway, capturing 67 percent of the vote. But the campaigning on the Northwest Side didn’t stop.

Garrido said Arena still won’t admit that opposition to the 5150 plan is “legitimately a grassroots effort.”

“Don’t believe the hype that Dan Proft is the mastermind pulling all the strings about what’s going on on the Northwest Side,” Garrido said. “I consider Dan a friend. But Dan is not coordinating. We’re not opposing the project to try to get candidates in office.”

On June 21, the Northwest Side GOP Club is planning to hold what it calls the “IL-Advised Conservative Collective and Banquet,” a fundraiser featuring Kessem and Biela.

“Don’t miss the conservative event of the year,” said one announcement on the club’s website.

The keynote speaker for the event will be Dan Proft.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

Top Trending
Check out the major news stories of the day