Being Incarcerated with COVID-19… What They’re Not Telling Us

by with One Comment CultureFeaturedPolitics

Here we are again. In the midst of a COVID outbreak. I was hoping we had learned something the first time around; however, that turned out to be just a hope. I’m especially disgusted with the way Governor Gretchen Whitmer, or should I say “Big Gretch” hasn’t stepped in to do more for MDOC (Michigan Depart of Corrections). I should also express my utter disdain, disgust, and outright fury at how Heidi Washington, Director of MDOC, is handling this. The men and women housed in these facilities are human and still have rights. The state of Michigan and MDOC have an obligation to keep these men and women safe, and right now they are doing the opposite. They are intentionally exposing inmates, staff, and surrounding communities to COVID-19 by continuing to ignore the deplorable conditions at many facilities that allow for rapid growth of the virus. 

Let’s go to Central Michigan Correctional Facility in Saint Louis, MI. 

There are approximately 2560 men housed at this Level 1 Facility and as of November 21, 2020, 1566 inmates have tested positive and 806 inmates have been identified as close contact. Testing ceased until December 3, 2020. 94% of the inmates in the facility are COVID positive. What does that mean for the inmates? What does that mean for the staff, who leaves and goes home every day? The counselors are calling off left and right because they are either COVID positive or close contact. What does this mean for the greater community who come in contact with the staff on a daily basis? Why hasn’t Big Gretch and Heidi responded? What are they waiting on? 

There is more, Shall I continue?

Just two weeks ago, they gave these adult men hot dogs and carrots as a meal and for dinner a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, only to turn around and give them peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with cereal for breakfast. These meals are nowhere near the required calorie count for a healthy person, yet with 94% of the inmates COVID positive, this is the meal they were given. How are these men expected to have any shot at recovery with an imposed unhealthy diet, limited access to nutrient-rich food and vitamins? 

Additionally, the men are not being given time outside, which is limiting their access to fresh, clean air. This takes minimal effort from the staff. Recall, this is a Level 1 facility where many men are on their way home. In fact, many are incarcerated for non-violent offenses and have less than 5 years remaining on their sentence. Where is the humanity? 94% of the population is COVID positive and close contact, this number doesn’t include staff. The inmates aren’t being given nutritious food so the least MDOC could do is ensure they have time outside for movement and access to fresh air. 

There’s more, Shall I go on?

The facility is NOT being cleaned. Period. The inmates are given non-germicidal bleach to clean; however, the directions state the bleach has to sit for 15 minutes before it’s deemed effective. Let’s be clear, it is NOT sitting for 15 minutes before it’s being wiped up. Why not purchase the cleaning supplies suggested by the CDC, unless of course, you don’t care. 

For one unit in particular, there are currently ONLY 3 porters assigned when there should be 12. You have 25% of the manpower needed to adequately clean the unit. 

Governor Whitmer and Heidi Washington do NOT care about these men and their actions support this claim. Let’s be clear, the information I’ve shared is only a snippet of what the inmates and the staff are experiencing. These men are already physically incarcerated behind bars, now they have to finish out their sentence with a virus running rampant, no access to adequate cleaning supplies, subpar food, and no time to go outside. This is a death sentence imposed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, “Big Gretch”, Heidi Washington, and MDOC.

Why aren’t more people talking about this??

This article was originally published on 3 December 2020.

Similar Read: Crime Pays

Trump and Smokers

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

Witnessing Jenna Ellis on Bill Maher a few weeks ago speculate that she will have to defend her right to practice Christianity under a Biden administration is reminiscent of other bad faith arguments (fear-mongering propaganda) made throughout history.

I performed at piano bars in Michigan when smoking publicly indoors was legal. It was horrible. My voice was constantly hoarse, my eyes agitated, my clothes always reeking, and my health in fluctuation. My exposure to second-hand smoke for 10 years will probably affect me later in life as if I was a smoker myself (I never was).

In the early 2000s, there were no gig opportunities that prevented smokers from blowing their poison into my lungs each night. Owners would never make a stand against this “bloc” of patrons. Many other performers and staff partook in the ritual so sadly, yet successfully peddled to consumers for centuries; only in the last 40 years proven to be a fatal and highly addictive (not to mention expensive) vice.

Luckily, good and healthy people fought like hell to outlaw smoking in public places in Michigan for the benefit of all, especially people like me.

It wasn’t easy. There was an army of propagandists and liars lead by the tobacco industry and legions of smokers, that tried to prevent their fortunes and way of life, respectively, from being changed.

“The bars will all close! You’ll lose all your business! You’ll drive away your best customers and thousands of bar owners, staff, and musicians will become unemployed!”

You would think the entire bar industry would close overnight if smoking was outlawed. The opposition to banning smoking was violent.

Of course, they were all not only wrong about these false narratives, but the complete opposite of their ignorant (and/or dishonest) predictions was true.

Smoking was outlawed. Bar business flourished. The lies were exposed.

It turns out that smokers still want to go out and socially drink regardless of their ability to smoke indoors. More importantly, an enormous chunk of the population who had stayed away from smoky bars now felt comfortable frequenting their local establishment.

“I can finally breathe when I go to a bar or restaurant. My clothes don’t reek anymore when I come gone from a long night. My allergies don’t flare up. I’m sick less often.”

*SMOKERS* were saying those things, not to mention the scores of non-smokers.

This phenomenon of lying, fear-mongering, and spreading propaganda to get what *you* want at *my* expense is par for the course for human history.

Now, they WERE right about a smoking ban diminishing smoking sales. That’s the only truth they could credibly argue. Cigarette sales declined and stocks went down.

Tobacco industry: lost money.
Smokers: slightly inconvenienced.
Everyone else: the quality of life, health, and opportunities skyrocketed.

So when I hear dishonest propaganda that communism will take root with a Biden administration (Biden is, was, and will always be a capitalist), or that religious practice will be oppressed (Biden is a devout Catholic), or that the military will be diminished (Biden’s son served), I just think of the smokers clinging to their way of life.

The stock market has already gone up. Biden attends church and prays the rosary, encouraging people of all faiths to worship freely as they wish. Biden has no plans to diminish or disrespect our military in any way.

However,

Trump: will lose power (and money).
Rich: will be slightly inconvenienced (when they pay more in taxes).
Everyone else:  the quality of life, health, and opportunities will skyrocket.

Similar read: The 37th Best Place to Live in America

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia. 

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. 

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red. 

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Critiquing the Candidates

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Record, platform, and history do matter in the Democratic primary, and pointing out the differences does not harm the candidates, it strengthens the team. 

20 candidates have declared their run for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2020 presidential election. That’s a massive list filled with candidates from different backgrounds, different experiences, different platforms, and different visions for the future. Already, conversations and social media comment boards are filled with opinions on who the front-runner is, who has the ability to sustain a run, or who can unite the party. Also included in these discussions (arguments), is why one should never criticize another candidate by bringing up their record or any other unfriendly information for fear that Democrats will weaken their own eventual nominee. Comments such as, “Democrats eat their young again,” or “here we go again with Democrats badly damaging each other -save it for the general election!” Not only is this idea unfair, but it is misguided and will lead to a flawed nominee rather than a strengthened team.

In 2016, there were two candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The argument that Sanders damaged Clinton and her ability to win in the general election has been proven false by many metrics. Hillary Clinton, largely, ran a campaign for the presidency that lacked substance and a clear vision. Mostly, she ran on a platform of ‘I’m not Trump.’ She failed to energize voters and create a high voter turnout, particularly among young people. Verified exit polling numbers show that the 18-29 year old demographic only created 13% of the electorate, with roughly 29% of the electorate coming from the demographics of 30-49 years old, 50-64 and 65+, however, all four of these demographics represent about the same population. Further, Bernie Sanders could have 1 created a contested convention and required super delegates to cast the final nominating votes, which many of his supporters probably would have liked considering the ethically questionable things the DNC did during the primary season, but he stood on stage and waited for five minutes for the cheering to subside before conceding the nomination to Hillary Clinton. He then campaigned on her behalf for the rest of the election, across the country and using his extensive network to urge his supporters to get out and cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton for president. During the 2016 primary season, there were no negative ads run by Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, or vice versa. Neither of the Democratic candidates ever told their supporters to vote against the other should they win the nomination, or not to vote at all. But, what they did do is to expose the Democratic electorate to truths about each others history, past voting records and what they would do differently. The impetus was on the nominee to excite the Democratic base, get out the vote and create a platform that people would want to vote for. As has been well documented, Clinton failed to do this by running a moderate campaign with few specifics except that she would be better than Donald Trump. She did not see what was so exciting for much of the electorate in a candidate like Sanders or, in a much different way, Trump, and did not speak to these people about what they needed from the government. She avoided states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan because they have been reliably Democratic – and she lost 2⁄3 of them. She did not create a campaign that felt authentic to Americans who don’t believe politicians are authentic, and she lost because of it.

Bernie Sanders offered Hillary Clinton an opportunity to be in touch with the electorate, to answer for a voting record that many Americans viewed as questionable, and to create a platform for the general election that would appeal to further voting blocs than what Democrats have traditionally enjoyed. He offered her a stronger campaign, but she did not capitalize on it – this does not mean he harmed her campaign. Similarly, in the current primary season, the Democrats and their supporters, are going to expose the history, experience, voting records, policy stances and many other things about each other. While this absolutely must remain civil and rooted in fact, and there should be no negative ads run against each other, the sheer breadth of candidates is going to open additional voting blocs to the eventual nominee, should they have the vision and insight to see it and act on it. By listening to the voters, who they donate to, who they show up for at rallies, what policies they like and don’t like, and being able to speak to those voters in the general election, the nominee will be strengthened. By having their ‘dirty laundry’ aired out in the primary, they will have an opportunity to formulate an answer for it, evolve on unpopular stances, and adapt their platform to reach more voters. If a fair, honest and open election is held, no Democratic voter should be able to say the nominee does not represent them when all is said and done, and a formidable candidate will represent the team in the general election. 

1 “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters ….” 9 Aug. 2018, https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-vote rs/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. 

This article was originally published on 1 May 2019.

Mexico, Tariffs, and Accountability

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Stop me if you heard this before: “POTUS makes a short notice international policy demand that is difficult to achieve and obtain measures of effectiveness or performance.”

As the deadline approaches, he claims a deal is reached and gets “credit for a political win.” Fast forward a few days and we learn the claimed deal was actually achieved months prior.

That’s where we are following the “new migrant policy deal” with Mexico. Our POTUS has claimed an achievement but the chances you’ve heard this is an old deal packaged as new are based on your political leanings only. In a day and time the initial story matters more than truth, it is now more important than ever that media (left, center and right) do the job they signed up for and push back whether it benefits their bias or not.

Take for instance the state of Michigan where a woman (Cathy Garnaat) attending a town hall by Republican Representative Justin Amash. For the first time, she heard there actually was negative information on Trump in the Mueller Report. Had she not been an Amash supporter, to this day (Deontay Wilder voice) she would not know this.

We exist in a bubble now more than ever. Funny in the Information Age, you can isolate yourself from information, but that is where we are. We are in a time where disinformation is standard practice and both parties as well as the media aids an administration that knows as long as they put their spin out first, the facts no longer matter.

My takeaway from the “new deal” with Mexico and the telling signs around it; this is how you sit and watch a system collapse when accountability and truth no longer matters. 

Similar Read: Newspeak

Remember Flint? 4 Years Later They Still Have a Water Crisis

by with 3 Comments Featured

Flint still doesn’t have clean running water… or at least water that doesn’t stink or burn when you take a shower. The government, of course, begs to differ.

This crisis made national news in 2014. The government knowingly subjected their residents to dangerous levels of lead in an attempt to save a dollar. Now tens of thousands of residents are sick and their medical resources are limited. According to the latest Census data, Flint has the highest poverty rate in the nation with 45% of their residents living below the poverty line. 58% of their children (or residents under the age of 18) are living below the poverty line, which is more than 3x the national average of 18%. Common sense would suggest that the most vulnerable need the most help? Yet, it’s the exact opposite.

Michigan (R) Gov. Rick Snyder recently announced that they will stop providing bottled water to Flint residents.
“We have worked diligently to restore the water quality and the scientific data now proves the water system is stable and the need for bottled water has ended.” – Gov. Rick Snyder

Churches and nonprofits have been tasked with handing out much of the water. They’re now bracing families and residents, who normally come by weekly for their water, that it’ll likely stop with no set plans or alternative options in place once it does. Synder states that the water system is now stable; but Flint residents, who are now being told it’s ok to bath and cook with this water, have heard that before. They tell a much different story.

“My water stinks. It still burns to take a shower… There’s no way they can say it’s safe. I think it’s really cruel what they’re doing to us as a city, as a whole. We’ve been struggling over four years almost. It’s just cold-hearted — now they’re taking our drinking water away from us.” – Flint resident Melissa Mays

Do you know someone in Flint, MI? We want to hear from them. Their story is important. Unfortunately, this crisis, which has been going on for 4 years, doesn’t get covered as much as it should… and that’s troubling, to say the least.