Blog

As a right-wing agenda is pushed through the US Supreme Court, the court’s status as an apolitical institution, removed from the fractious discourse of national politics, becomes more and more dubious. That status was already in question for the past two decades: events such as the passing of Citizens United in 2010, which allowed unlimited amounts of anonymous private funds to be poured into political campaigns, the Republican caucus’s obstinate blockade of Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016, and the revelation that Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, implored lawmakers across the country to support Donald Trump’s attempted coup in January 2021 have collectively drawn attention to the fact that the court is not removed from the partisan politics it was designed to adjudicate. In fact, the Supreme Court is just as, if not more, partisan than Congress itself.

The 2021-2022 judicial term brought on a whole new level of earth-shattering decisions. With Amy Coney Barrett comfortably situated as its sixth Republican justice after being sworn in in 2020, the nation’s highest court had a wealth of opportunities to assert itself. And while the erasure of a woman’s right to choose in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was by all accounts the most dramatic decision passed, it also epitomized a more widespread erosion of civil liberties spearheaded by the court. To name a few: the EPA’s ability to regulate energy companies was greatly reduced (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency); states’ rights to enforce gun restrictions were curtailed (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen); and the separation of Church and State, a core precept of the Constitution, took numerous decisive hits (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District and Carson v. Makin).

With its legitimacy already in question and more momentous decisions on the docket for the 2022-2023 cycle, the Supreme Court has become the subject of widespread scrutiny and speculation. How, moderate and left-wing citizens wonder, could its institutional legitimacy be restored, and its fealty to a right-wing agenda counteracted? What options are there for reforming the court immediately, without exacerbating its image as an instrument for political gain? From term limits to court-packing, an array of actions could be taken by President Biden, who can advocate or unilaterally pass measures to ward off the Court’s rightward trend. Below, we’ve quickly mapped out the two measures that have gained the most political traction, along with a brief explanation as to what they would look like:

Term Limits: Of the reforms recently proposed, this appears to be the least controversial. All other constitutional democracies in the world have either a mandatory retirement age or a fixed term limit for their high court Justices. The existence of lifetime appointments motivates both parties to strike a balance in nominations between qualifications and youth, since it’s in their best interest to inaugurate Justices who will faithfully adhere to their party’s agenda and remain on the bench for as long as possible – Clarence Thomas has now been in office for over 30 years, and he’s only 74. Term limits, then, would ensure that Justices are nominated according to their experience, not just their youth, and that the American electorate – in other words, we – have a more direct and predictable say over the bench’s makeup. The commonly proposed term limit is 18 years – once enough time has passed, this would mean that approximately two Supreme Court seats would hang in the balance with each Presidential election cycle.

Currently, five out of six of the Republican Supreme Court Justices were nominated by wildly unpopular Presidents who didn’t even win the popular vote. Considering the fact that their average age at nomination was 50 years old, it’s not unreasonable to expect that most of them will stick around for at least 30 years, perhaps even as many as 40 – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, served until she passed away at 87. Instead of being stuck for indefinite periods with Justices whose nominations came decades before, sometimes under dubious circumstances, the American people should have the chance to regularly influence the makeup of the Court. Replacing a lifetime appointment with a term limit of 18 years would mean that Presidential elections carry much more weight, perhaps inspiring higher voter turnout as well.

Court-Packing: The Biden administration has a quick, not altogether unprecedented measure at its disposal – expanding the court to include more seats. Unlike term limits, which would require the approval of Congress, this measure could be imposed without the approval of any legislative body. If President Biden took advantage of his position and nominated four liberal Justices today, Democrats in Congress would still have the majority they need to confirm those nominees and get them on the bench in a matter of months.

It’s an increasingly popular, albeit controversial, proposal. One source of hesitancy among less progressive Democrats is that court-packing could lead to a spiral of indefinite political retribution. Who’s to say that Republicans won’t expand the court back in their favor as soon as they take control of the Executive Branch? Wouldn’t such an action drive the Court even more deeply into the partisan muck? Doesn’t court-packing therefore feed into the politicization of the Court, instead of restoring its integrity as a neutral judicial body?

The problem with this objection, though, is that it falsely assumes that Republican politicians have enough humility to put the interests of our democracy over those of their party, when we are already deep in the throes of a full-fledged national assault on voting rights. Since the Court’s 2013 decision to nullify part of the Voting Rights Act, Republican lawmakers have wasted no time chipping away at voters’ ability to cast ballots while expanding the power that incumbent politicians have to certify (or not certify) ballot counts. With several new voting rights cases on the docket for 2022-2023 – most notably, one that could give state legislators unchecked power to draw state voting maps in their favor – this Supreme Court could help propel that assault even further. And there’s no reason to hold out hope that we’ll be pleasantly surprised by the current bench, since this Conservative majority has already allowed Alabama and Louisiana to reinstate racist voting maps, even after those maps were overturned by their respective State Supreme Courts.

Over the course of the coming months, President Biden faces an obvious moral imperative – before Republicans likely retake Congress in 2023 and the Supreme Court has the chance to pass more restrictive voting laws that explicitly favor Republicans, he should do everything in his power to pass term limits and balance the courts. With his leadership, we can preserve one of our most fundamental democratic pillars and restore the Court’s institutional integrity. 

Time is of the essence.

Read more

It is difficult to put words to the weight that has, and forever will, define this day. A day that has been fought for, brought on by indignant men and women rabid to ravage the rights of millions, of generations.

It is a different sort of heartache and pain when you are aware that something is coming. We have had weeks to prepare for this day, to come to terms with it, to get appointments and plans in order. Weeks to fight, weeks to hide from the reality of the stripped precedent that would all too soon be forced upon us. Yet the sun still rose today, the gavel was struck, and knowing that those two things would occur did not make them any easier to bear when they did. We know that the sun will rise tomorrow as well, and we know that the ache, the fury, the heaviness that plagues our beings will still be here too. Ache and fury that will be regurgitated, picked apart across media platforms. It will be the topic of conversation, feuds, therapy sessions, opinion pieces; the list goes on. The dense heaviness we will carry with us long after this week; we will carry it with us long after the news and social media move on. We will carry it with us when the next agenda is pushed to diminish the rights of this nation’s marginalized while securing those for its powerful, its males, its wealthy, its white.

This is a heaviness that may one day be relieved after it has been channeled into resolute, relentless action. It has to be, should we ever want to create a world in which our daughters have the rights that our mothers and grandmothers had. Action to create meaningful, structural change will not be easy; it will require us to remain tenacious while being gentle with ourselves, caring for one another while fighting against a political agenda that does not care about us. Yet it must be done. 

Change will never be implemented as long as we continue to allow this nation’s moral compass to be stunted, valuing profit and power over people. The blood of those people will never turn into milk and honey.

Read more

Since the two gruesome mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo unfolded within days of each other last month, much of the country has once again become fixated on gun laws – or the lack thereof – in the United States. At this point, it’s all part of a predictable political cycle: a mass shooting occurs, the nation becomes outraged and insists on meaningful institutional response, and after weeks of pandering from political figures who refuse to sign on the dotted line, our collective attention shifts to another issue and away from the national pall of gun violence. Politicians like Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott tactfully bide their time with platitudes of “thoughts and prayers” and manicured photo ops, while their expressions of compassion for the bereaved belie a hard-to-swallow truth – millions of dollars in political funding, especially for Republicans, comes from a gun lobby whose raison d’être is to sell as many lethal weapons as possible. 

After enough time, the media moves on to the next pressing topic, once again rewarding these tried-and-true tactics, and institutions like the NRA go back to quietly pouring money into impressionable politicians’ coffers. Then, months later, it all starts over: tragedy gives way to outrage; outrage gives way to political dialogue; and political dialogue leads to little, if any, substantive change. Today, we’re already moving on from last month’s shootings to focus on the January 6th Congressional hearings and inflation, but all we have to show after weeks of conversation is a gun safety bill that only takes minor steps to limit the public distribution of military-grade assault weapons.

In a country where it feels impossible to enact substantive institutional change around this issue, it’s hard not to feel resigned to the inevitability of these cycles. Sometime in the next few months, we figure, another tragic shooting will happen and it will start all over again, with similar, if not identical, results. Legislative action, at least for the time being, appears all but impossible. The most we can hope for is that those intractable politicians who refuse to come to the table will be voted out, giving us the chance to pass sensible gun reform laws. And while it’s certainly a, if not the, pillar in the effort to put a stop to gun violence, there are other, more grassroots-oriented efforts that can help us create a culture that nurtures before it alienates, that fosters compassion and, in the process, helps to reduce violence of all kinds. The desire for guns and the desire to use those guns are, after all, reflections of the society that we are actively building every day. So as powerless as we may feel to stand up against the entrenched interests of the gun lobby, we can still find ways to support the people around us and mitigate gun culture in the process. 

Here are three everyday priorities that can help us tilt the scales towards a more inclusive, less polarized, safer society:

Flip the Script on Masculinity: The vast majority of violent crimes, both in the United States and elsewhere, are committed by men. Surely, engrained expectations of men – as protectors, as aggressors, as conquerors – are at least partially to blame for this trend. As we hear again and again about mass shootings, an archetype of the assailant starts to emerge: they are men under the age 40 who feel alienated and misunderstood, who believe it’s their responsibility to take up arms to protect some vitriolic cause. So much of this is rooted in conventional narratives that paint the ideal man as stoic, impregnable, and committed to his convictions. Having subscribed to this distorted ideal, those who eventually turn into assailants are made to feel like they should not seek help, since it would be a sign of weakness, and weakness, of course, an affront to their virility. 

In a world where the greatest mark of masculinity is emotional self-sufficiency, it becomes virtually impossible for so many men to open up and process their struggles, which, when left unaddressed, often give way to violent impulses. Their anger and angst compound as they continue isolating themselves and becoming resentful of a world that tells them not to ask for help. It’s our responsibility, then, to start painting a more holistic portrait of what it means to be a man and the ways in which emotional vulnerability can be a sign of spiritual strength. By fostering a culture in which men try to process their feelings instead of repressing them, we can equip those at risk with the emotional tools they need to seek help before they lash out.

Draw Attention Away from the Narratives of Assailants: Thankfully, this step is already being taken by a media machine that for many years fueled public fascination with mass shooters’ personal narratives and intentions. It’s easy to see how a young, vulnerable person might come to view the perpetrators of mass shootings as martyrs in such a cultural climate: for years, the faces of these shooters appeared on TV screens across the country while their personal lives were scrutinized by the public at large. Only in the past few years has the media started to acknowledge that naming the shooter – much less profiling them and posting their manifestos – could perversely inspire some to follow in their footsteps in the hopes that they, too, could become a figure of public curiosity. By rarely mentioning perpetrators’ names and instead focusing on the victims and their broader cultural context, we can reduce the chances that mass shooters will have any sort of posthumous legacy. And while this resolution applies to mass media most of all, it’s also vital that we avoid glamorizing and fetishizing mass killers in more personal contexts as well. By placing thoughtful parameters around our conversations about mass shootings, we can cultivate a culture that condemns violence but doesn’t motivate it.

Support the Disenfranchised: It’s no coincidence that gun violence disproportionately takes place in poor, disinvested neighborhoods. Without livable employment opportunities, people find themselves caught in systemic feedback loops that force them into debt or prison and lead directly to higher rates of localized violence. This study from the Brookings Institute demonstrates “the promise of micro-level place-based interventions (such as rehabilitating vacant lots or increasing the number of community organizations) in significantly decreasing violence within these neighborhoods.” It explores the many ways people can provide these kinds of support to disenfranchised communities: by donating funds to community-based programs, by getting directly involved in those programs, or by hiring underserved individuals through one’s own business. Instead of complacently accepting the socioeconomic stratification that has only gotten worse the past few decades, more financially stable individuals must take it upon themselves to help poorer communities gain access to the same resources and opportunities they have. While governmental support is an essential component of such initiatives, grassroots work can also go a long way towards uplifting those who are most in need.

While we continue to hold our elected officials accountable in the hopes that meaningful gun reform will eventually see the light of day, we must also focus on the ways we can take direct action in our own lives to support the people around us and reduce violence in our communities. Consider this a call to arms – while we must not give up the fight in advocating for safer gun laws, we must also find ways to nurture those most at risk of getting caught up in gun culture, from the isolated young white man reading bigoted blogs to the former convict who can’t catch a break. Even as our elected officials continue to fail us, we can still find hope in our own lives and the collective power of community.

Read more

The red wolf. Florida panther. California condor. Mississippi gopher frog.

These are just some of the most endangered species in the United States, as declared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service; because of persistent human activity such as pollution, land conversion for development purposes and climate change, they are at a high risk for extinction. The US Endangered Species Act, one of America’s oldest and most effective environmental laws, has saved many iconic species like the bald eagle, grizzly bears and more. Unfortunately, many provisions were made to the act in 2019, which slows protections until conditions worsen for each species. The revised rules would also prohibit the designation of habitat for species threatened by climate change.

This is devastating for our wildlife.

A recent report by the National Wildlife Federation found that one-third of America’s wildlife is at some increased risk of extinction. More than 150 American species have already gone extinct, and nearly 500 additional species have not been seen in recent decades. This includes the Eastern Monarch butterfly populations and animals such as manatees, which are dying at a fast rate in Florida.

In another report from May 2020, the Center for American Progress calculated that the Trump administration attempted to remove protections from nearly 35 million acres of public lands, approximately 1,000 times more land than his administration protected. The administration was considered the most “anti-nature presidency in the country’s history,” according to the report.

By stripping protections from national monuments such as Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante, more than 2 million acres designated for conservation were opened up and sold for mineral development. This is in addition to the 35 million acres of public lands from which protections have been removed– equivalent in size to the state of Florida, or 15 times the size of Yellowstone National Park, according to the article “Saving Earth: Trump’s track record for wildlife conservation makes him the most ‘anti-nature President’ ever.”

Now is the time to act; there are many ways to help make a difference to protect our world’s most precious wildlife. Recently, a bipartisan bill called the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act was introduced to Congress, aiming to address this looming crisis. Thankfully, the bill was passed in June! You can also take action now with The Nature Conservancy. Sign one of the many petitions and donate what you can to help save our amazing wildlife that inhabits our remarkable planet.

Read more

At first, the night of December 2^nd, 1984 in Bhopal, India was just like any other. A chilly calm draped itself over the city’s residents, and the bustling streets quieted to a faint drone. Yet between 12:30 and 1am that night, people throughout the city started waking up to the smell of a strange, yellow gas floating through the air, and the sound of coughing. Their eyes burned “as if chili powder had been flung into them,” and thousands started vomiting uncontrollably as they tried to escape the all-encompassing cloud. By 3AM that night, a mass exodus of about 200,000 people – approximately a quarter of the city’s population – had begun, leaving behind animals and children who did not have the strength to help themselves. The city streets were jammed with scooters carrying entire families and trucks that overflowed with dozens of suffocating people.

About one hour before all of this began, around 11:30PM, a pesticide manufacturing plant owned by the Texas-based Union Carbide Corporation had started leaking methyl isocyanate, a toxic gas commonly known as MIC that was used to produce Sevin, the brand name for Union Carbide’s version of the insecticide carbaryl. Small chemical spills were a common occurrence in the city, which perhaps explains why the reactions of the local government and Union Carbide, both that night and the morning after, were slow and optimistic. Early the next morning, Bhopal residents were told it was safe to return to their homes, and that the city streets, now coated with human vomit and flanked by trees that had died overnight, were safe to walk.

In spite of these calls for calm, it was almost immediately obvious to residents of Bhopal that this spill was unlike any the city had ever seen. By 4AM that morning, over 40 tons of MIC, along with a cocktail of other noxious, still largely undisclosed chemicals, had poured out from one of the plant’s gas tanks and into Bhopal’s atmosphere, exposing over 600,000 residents and reaching as far as 5 miles downwind.

Today, the devastating effects of the spill are well-documented, though still disputed by legal representatives of Union Carbide. Official estimates of the death toll, which account both for the thousands who died within two weeks of the spill and those who died over the coming years from diseases directly connected to MIC exposure, exceed 15,000, and continue to climb with each passing year. The extensive list of the spill’s health impacts explains why many characterize it as the world’s most devastating industrial disaster: cancer rates among victims are ten times higher than the national average; children of victims are disproportionately born with birth defects; and groundwater, relied upon by many of Bhopal’s poorer residents, is still contaminated with a slew of toxins, including heavy metals and pesticide concentrations that are “561 times [higher] than the Indian standard.”

While the residents of Bhopal continue to struggle with the spill’s aftermath, its perpetrators have met hardly any legal or financial backlash. Union Carbide committed to a $470 million settlement mediated by the Indian Supreme Court in 1989, a number based on outrageous underestimations of the death toll and the number of people who suffered permanent disabilities because of the spill. Families of the dead were awarded an average sum of $2,200, and the chemical plant, now abandoned, continues to leak toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the earth.

Though the Supreme Court settlement mandated that Union Carbide clean up the spill site decades ago, the sale of the company to Dow Chemical in 2001 made a complete environmental remediation seem even more doubtful than it already was: today, the Bhopal plant still contains over 8,000 tons of carcinogenic chemicals, but Dow Chemical remains steadfast in its refusal to clean up the site. The company claims that the matter is out of their hands, since they are merely the inheritors of the spill’s legacy, not its perpetrators. Union Carbide, which remains a thriving subsidiary of Dow, has found a way to hide from culpability, and the people of Bhopal, having no culprit to point to, have been forsaken by the international community.

That all changed for one fleeting instant in December of 2004, on the 20^th anniversary of the disaster, when the residents of Bhopal received an unexpected glimmer of hope. A spokesman for Dow named Jude Finisterra appeared on the BBC World during the primetime news hour in the United Kingdom to commemorate the disaster and to make a major announcement on behalf of the world’s third-largest chemical producer.

The host, Stephen Sackur, introduced his guest, and turned to him. “Do you now accept responsibility for what happened?” he asked over video conference.

Against a manicured backdrop of the Eiffel Tower on a clear summer day, Finisterra tentatively pivoted on his swivel chair and took a deep breath in.

“Steve, yes.” Finisterra’s eyelids closed for a second. “Today is a great day for all of us at Dow, and I think for millions of people around the world as well. It’s 20 years since the disaster, and today I’m very happy to announce that for the first time, Dow is accepting full responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe. We have a $12 billion plan to finally, at long last, fully compensate the victims, including the 120,000 who may need medical care for their entire lives, and to fully and swiftly remediate the Bhopal plant site.”

The interview went on for five minutes, and offered a stunning reversal of Dow’s refusal to assume any responsibility for the disaster. Finisterra promised that Dow would “provide more than $500 per victim, which is all that they’ve seen – [there’s been a] maximum of $500 per victim, [up until now which is] not ‘plenty good for an Indian,’ as one of our spokespersons unfortunately said a couple of years ago…Furthermore, we will perform a full and complete remediation of the Bhopal site…which has not been cleaned up. When Union Carbide abandoned the site 16 years ago, they left tons of toxic waste, and the site continues to be used as a playground by children. Water continues to be drunk from the groundwater underneath,” he lamented.

Finisterra promised that Dow would gather the money for these long overdue reparations by liquidating Union Carbide, “this nightmare for the world and this headache for Dow,” and devoting its $12 billion value to the residents of Bhopal who had been suffering for two decades. “This is the first time in history that a publicly owned company…has performed an action which is significantly against its bottom line simply because it’s the right thing to do,” he exclaimed at the end of the five-minute long interview.

Yet Jude Finisterra was not a representative for Dow Chemical – in fact, he wasn’t even Jude Finisterra. His real name is Jacques Servin, and he is a member of a small collective of activists called the Yes Men who masquerade as corporate representatives to shed light on their deceptive PR campaigns. Later that night, in an interview as himself, Jacques admitted that he hoped to use the announcement “to show that [Dow Chemical] could…easily accept responsibility [for the disaster] and that there was something very concrete they could do about it.”

Mr. Servin’s audacious act of protest sent shockwaves across the world. Within minutes of its first airing, the interview received international media coverage, and Dow Chemical’s stock on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange plummeted over 4 percent, costing the company over $2 billion. Instead of offering a tailored declaration of solidarity with the victims of Bhopal to commemorate the spill’s 20^th anniversary, as they had originally planned, Dow’s spokespeople were forced to issue multiple statements which reiterated the company’s obstinate refusal to do anything about the spill.

Servin’s stunt was criticized by many as heartless, as it had falsely convinced thousands of victims in Bhopal that the years of anguish they’d endured might soon come to a close. While Jacques lamented the disappointment they must have felt when the interview was revealed to be a hoax, he remained steadfast in his conviction. “Let’s put this in contrast,” he said in a subsequent interview. “I mean, we might have given people two hours of false hope; Dow has given them 20 years of suffering.”

Instead of watching it recede into the periphery of the public political consciousness, Servin and the Yes Men had reignited the conversation surrounding the Bhopal disaster. Jude Finisterra’s statements had forced viewers around the world to wonder why Dow Chemical had done virtually nothing to remediate the site, and to see its failure to act as a conscious choice, rather than inevitability. As strange as it may sound, the Yes Men had shed light on Dow’s lack of compassion by humanizing the corporation, and showing that it was capable of practicing kindness towards people other than its shareholders.

Read more

June is upon us and you know what that means: it’s Pride Month! Across the globe, cities big and small dust off their rainbow flags to take part in fabulous parades, festivals and concerts to celebrate the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others) community, in honor of the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City’s Greenwich Village. While this month is super fun with a capital “F,” it is also a chance to delve into the issues facing the Gay Rights Movement– from mental health and homelessness among youth to discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual parents.

It’s particularly important to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community now more than ever because last year, numerous states introduced what amounted to more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ bills. They range from discimination and erasing the community from education curricula, to denying transgender people access to health care, and prohibiting transgender youth from participating in school sports, according to the CAP article “The 2022 Legislative Landscape for LGBTQI+ Rights.”

A prominent bill that has gained national attention was Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, otherwise known as the Parental Rights in Education Act. The bill’s authors aim to prohibit classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity, which advocates say would make LGBTQ+ people “taboo once again in classrooms, setting back the progress made by the LGBTQ+ community in the last few weeks,” Kiara Alfonseca wrote in the article “Florida’s controversial ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill: What’s inside the proposed law.” Something else the bill requires is for parents to be notified if a student uses a new health resource for monitoring of their mental or physical well-being. This could in turn, “out” LGBTQ+-identifying students to their parents without their consent. Overall, activists agree that this bill is a big step backward.

Texas is another place that is looking to remove protections for LGBTQ+ people, particularly the trans community. Gov. Greg Abbott has instructed the child welfare agency to investigate gender-affirming procedures for trans youth as “child abuse.” Further, Pennsylvania is one of 27 states that still does not have any statewide laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer article “2022 is ‘poised to become the year of the most anti-LGBTQ legislation’ in the United States.”

These are just a handful of issues (and unfortunate legislation) facing the LGBTQ+ community today, and they show no sign of going away any time soon. Fortunately, there are many ways to be an ally, show support, and fight for these issues. We can support local LGBTQ+ businesses, donate to nonprofits around the country (such as nonprofits on this list to help out), take part in Pride Month celebrations near you, and stay informed on laws pertaining to the LGBTQ+ community.

Read more

Many have heard the old nursery rhyme that laments, “rain rain go away, come again, another day.” Typically, rain is a part of nature for so many people, giving life to vegetation, plants, trees, and much more. That’s why these lyrics are so common around the world, except in some places – particularly the West Coast of the United States right now. 

What you see here is an extremely arid climate, with droughts extending from the Oregon Cascades to the entire state of California, Utah, Idaho, up to Montana, and down to south-central Nevada and parts of New Mexico. Scientists have even dubbed it a “megadrought,” considered the worst drought in more than 1,200 years. It’s mainly attributed to human-caused climate change, coming largely from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, writer Eric Mack said in his c|net article “Megadrought in the West is Worst in More Than 1,200 Years.” While precipitation is lacking in most areas around the country, the drought is further caused by the high temperatures of the West Coast.

Julia Cole, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan, found in a recent study featured in the New York Times that “precipitation amounts can go up and down over time and can vary regionally,” but “as human activities continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, temperatures are more generally rising.” As this happens, the air is better able to pull water from soil, vegetation, and crops, worsening the drought conditions.

Unfortunately, the current 22-year drought is still in full swing and will last a few more years, according to A. Park Williams, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

We can’t change the day-to-day weather unless we do things to drastically counteract global warming– and that takes time. In the meantime, if you’re in an area affected by extreme drought, how can you do your part? It’s important to follow state and local restrictions on water use. Also, according to Ready.gov, you can do things like this indoors:

• Take short showers instead of baths (turn on the water only to get wet and lather and then again to rinse off)
• Don’t let water run while brushing teeth, washing your face or shaving
• Use automatic dishwashers only when they are fully load; use the “light wash” feature to use less water
• Avoid using running water to thaw meat or other frozen foods; defrost food overnight in the fridge or use the defrost setting on the microwave
• Operate clothes washers only when there is a full load, or set the water level for the size of your load

Outdoors:

• Avoid leaving sprinklers or hoses unattended 
• Wash your car at a commercial car wash that recycles the water
• If your lawn requires water, do so in the morning or at night when temperatures are cooler

Consider more ways to help conserve water and do your part to support The Nature Conservancy, an organization working hard to save water for people and nature. Let’s do our part to conserve what helps give us life: water.

Read more

Patricia Vernhes, founder of Mojave Skin Shield, relishes in one simple philosophy: self-inquiry starts with the way we feel. From connecting with the planet through conscious, thoughtful garment design and construction to the organic skincare applied to protect us from the elements, Vernhes hoped to create a line for the multi-faceted person; one who cares deeply about what is happening all around them. Her non-traditional roots as an artist in Poland and the United Kingdom, and subsequent move to Joshua Tree more than a decade ago leads her boundless curiosity on how to shift our perspective toward self-reliance in an individualistic sense, to a closer look on how we can share these tools with the community at large.

You started your career as a pop artist before creating sculptures and installations, looking to other cultural elements for inspiration. What other events brought you to this place of skincare and fashion design?

I had a pretty unusual childhood, growing up in Poland under a communist regime whilst my parents were subversive artists whose work became instrumental to establishing a young democracy. To us, film and literature were like food; we needed references in order to understand our place in the global reality, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It wasn’t until I moved to the United Kingdom in the mid-90’s to attend college that I realized just how intertwined music, fashion, film, and art really are. These discoveries shaped me as a young artist, but they also gave foundation to an unquenchable thirst for understanding the multi-level meaning of freedom: self - family- community - society - civilization.

Each of these levels creates opportunities for self enquiry. After studying music, humanities, art, and culture I took another trajectory; I devoted 10 years to immerse myself in the studies of Yoga & Ayurveda. This blend only deepened my yearnings and once I discovered the Mojave Desert, there was no going back.

The desert gifted me space to begin a new dialogue; to rearrange priorities, recalibrate and repurpose myself. It taught me how to listen to the quiet voice. My skincare formulas really came in meditation at first, as did the treatments. It also showed me that abundance is closely linked to simplicity. Finally, it brought me the best people, love, and family. 

I became self-reliant regarding design; I made clothes instead of buying them, I made skincare. I offered treatments and hosted gatherings. Above all creative outputs, there was the service to people; infinite sharing. It felt so good; I realized I wanted to share this with the whole world. And so began the journey that brings us to where we are now. It still never ceases to amaze me.

What about the desert inspires you, and influences your shift towards fashion and beauty design?

The desert is like a minimalist heaven; on the surface it looks dry and arid, yet underneath the first impressions it's teaming with life. At first it feels quiet, only to reveal a richness of sounds, from coyotes to owls to echos, to whatever you place in front of you. Over-styling here is simply impossible, but utility can dictate the most solid style. It's neither feminine or masculine; it is human, in all its ‘heightened-awareness’ kind of glory.

Sustainability and thoughtfulness seems to be the main coda in your work; the silent exchanges between humans and the places that we inhabit. Given the discussion about how the world is quickly changing towards a more virtual space, what about bringing it back to the elements is striking to you?

The idea that we cannot escape them; our bodies need peace, comfort and protection, but our senses need inspiration. How we blend in and what we communicate is a sum of all things: how we walk, how we talk, what we wear, what we smell like. How we take care of ourselves can come from many places, such as vanity or love. Longevity, sustainability, thoughtfulness; it is our own Medicine, and by this I mean the Medicine of our ancestors - Collective Knowledge. 

What led you to the manifesto that essentially says, “if you take care of yourself, you can take care of others”? 

I always feel like every moment matters; perspective can be a great muse. Before I moved to the desert I often thought that I was missing that regal, mighty human concept; the true regal soul thing, not ego. The idea of being regal because of how you act, how you show up, and how you make others feel. At MDSS it permeates everything, such as how we make our skincare, choose our ingredients, artisans, partners, and leaders; what we give and offer when you commune here. It's not an easy dance, but everyone has to figure it out. If human ethics really mattered to all, we would be in a different place today as a planet. 

What kind of advice do you find the most empowering? 

Nurture. Share. Preserve. Follow Your Intuition. Stay Radiant. 

How do your philosophies for life translate to your philosophies regarding skincare?

I create products that do not contain fillers; they are all about the active ingredients, including the botanicals, clays, and oils. We create the formula around the active ingredients, so to speak; to nurture their healing potential and preserve their goodness so they can be shared with the world. Hence our ethos: Nurture + Share + Preserve. 

We also deeply believe that skincare is basically food for the skin, and that skin, being our largest organ, metabolizes whatever it is given. Skincare should be not only clean but also organic, just like food. We carefully source our raw ingredients to make sure they are made in an Earth-friendly way. Plants have so much power; skincare can be potent , organic and smart all at the same time. 

 How do you approach design when it comes to your products, both aesthetically and chemically?

There are so many aspects of creating thoughtful goods for the modern human. It’s embracing our culture and heritage, it's a commitment to our artisans; it is creating a food chain. To me, the people who make our products are like family. I am really proud to support their families and their skills through intentional, fairly priced collaboration. Personally, it's a creative output that I absolutely love. 

I draw inspiration from film and history; from stitch types to boot shapes, weaving methods, and vintage coat patterns. My mom had this amazing vintage weekend bag which we turned into our Weekender bag. We just try to improve and upgrade it all, having fun while making the pieces as durable and timeless as possible. 

Our philosophy is driven by the idea of the person, and the essential purpose behind each piece. For example, the wrap dress is titled the Day Round Ritual Wrap Dress because you can literally wear it to tend to your garden, then wash your hands, roll down your sleeves and go to dinner. The Totem Bucket Handbag is our homage to the medicine bag. It’s meant to carry the things that matter; uncluttered, easy-to-find objects protected by a simple, yet timeless style vessel. The Chiara dress was inspired by a dear friend of mine who wore a vintage linen dress to one of our meetings. She exudes creativity and self reliance; I actually found this dress shape on a post-war photograph from the streets of Paris. I wear mine almost daily, because that embodies who I am when I am at home in the desert. I roll up my sleeves and tackle all projects the best I can; I am a mother, homemaker, an artist and facilitator in my wellbeing space. My clothes support me in my purpose, and I meet so many women who say they need this philosophy to wear their own daily clothes. I am truly honored to dress my friends and clients. 

As with skincare, we are very careful and thoughtful about how we source our fabrics. Our linen comes from a collection of custom archival prints from a family-owned flax field and factory in Northern Europe. Our cashmere and alpaca is farmed and woven in Nepal by women who have been weaving using their traditional methods for generations. 

I believe this philosophy slows down consumerism and creates lasting goods that can perhaps be handed down to the next generation. We just need to look after what we have, inside and out.

Read more

How Abandoned Offshore Rigs are Changing the Gulf of Mexico

Hundreds of feet below the Gulf of Mexico’s surface, there’s a network of bustling underwater cities. They are built on the skeletons of offshore oil rigs that have long since been abandoned by their owners, but remain seated on the Gulf’s floor. Colonies of mussels, encircled by swooping schools of fish, now obscure the steel frames that once towered above the seafloor and held up platforms where oil workers labored day and night.

“When you look at a map of the Gulf of Mexico, it looks like a thumbprint,” says Richard Charter, a writer and political consultant who has researched American offshore drilling policies since the 1980s. Charter is talking about the winding mess of oil pipelines, wells and rigs that are scattered across the muddy bottom of the Gulf, and on maps resemble the undulating grooves of a fingerprint. They make up an intricate infrastructural network that extracts petroleum from the Gulf floor, sometimes thousands of feet beneath the surface of the water, and then transports that crude oil to the web of refineries sitting along the Gulf Coast.

***

Although offshore drilling was little more than a concept in 1947, the federal policymakers who originally defined its regulations weren’t naïve. They knew that every offshore rig, like anything else, living or not, would eventually meet its expiration date. With this in mind, they made sure that each offshore rig built in American waters came with a simple guarantee from its owner – any rig no longer in use would have to be removed, and the seafloor over which it stood would be restored to its original ecological state.

The process this entailed, called decommissioning, has since been performed on thousands of rigs in the Gulf and requires several steps which today cost millions, sometimes even tens of millions, of dollars (Charter, et al. 10). First, the vertical pipelines which connect the above-sea platform to the well are severed, usually about 15 feet below the seafloor, and filled with coagulate material. The well is considered plugged once a thick layer of concrete is poured over this, ensuring that any residual oil won’t leak from the vestigial pipes. The platform is either dismantled or moved to another drilling site, and the jacket – the soaring metal structure resembling an electrical tower which reaches from seafloor to surface to prop up the platform – must be towed to shore, where it will either be repurposed or melted for scrap (10, 39).

The 1954 policy that required decommissioning was called “Idle Iron” and seemed like an adequate defense against any risk of derelict rigs disturbing the Gulf’s ecological equilibrium. If the oil companies would clean up after themselves, the Gulf – expansive, shimmering – could maintain its natural integrity, despite the ecological disruption that active rigs may cause. The oil industry was starting to put down its roots in a frantic influx of construction – the Gulf would be home to over 4,000 active platforms by 2004 – but it was only able to do so on the grounds that its trash would not be deserted on the seafloor (9-10).

But between the 1950s and the 1960s, an extraordinary development started to challenge the terms of this agreement. Throughout the Gulf, recreational fishermen had begun spotting vibrant marine communities that had made homes out of active rigs’ jackets – “people noticed there were good places to fish almost right off-the-bat,” says Mike McDonough, Louisiana’s Artificial Reef Coordinator (McDonough). By the 1970s, about half of all fishing trips in the Gulf traveled straight to offshore rigs, where flourishing biological communities of small and large fish alike could be harvested (Jørgensen 347). Fishermen would tie their boats to a rig jacket, cast their nets, and return to shore hours later with hauls up to 50 times larger than those they were accustomed to having in open waters (347). And though it had come as a surprise that the Gulf had amassed the world’s largest assortment of artificial underwater habitats, its origin wasn’t much of a mystery to those looking back (Charter, et al. 9).

***

Since the floor of the Gulf of Mexico is naturally muddy and flat, the types of productive, concentrated habitats where fishermen could pull in lucrative hauls of fish like groupers and red snapper were practically nonexistent in the 1940s and 1950s. Marine life, though plentiful, was spread out across a vast underwater plain, meaning fishermen had to work long, arduous shifts just to return to shore with modest hauls (Jørgensen 346, 352).

For this to change, the habitat needed more complexity – as long as the Gulf floor remained flat and muddy, it could never provide the concentrated marine populations that recreational fishermen desired. They wanted to be able to capture more fish by covering less territory with each dropped net, but nothing other than habitable surfaces with vertical structure could provide what they needed (Kilson, et al. 1069-1070). Since vertical structures have some parts that are closer to sea level and others that are closer to the seafloor, they could provide many different levels of light, allowing a variety of species with diverse needs to thrive in one place (1072-1073).

Fishermen along the Gulf coast had been lobbying for the government to lay abandoned ships or concrete slabs on the Gulf of Mexico floor to create artificial reefs (Jørgensen 346). By providing the type of physical surface, called substrate, which was porous and rigid enough for corals to take hold, these materials would offer something that a flat seafloor could not. Corals, mussels, clams and algae would congregate on the substrate, they argued, and this would attract commercially viable fish like red snapper and generate the types of productive fisheries that the Gulf of Mexico lacked (348).

And although the soaring metal jackets of the rigs installed in the 1940s and 1950s provided the topography that fishermen wanted, the idea that they could become a viable habitat for corals seemed absurd at the time. The columns and cross-braces of the jackets’ legs provided plenty of substrate, to be sure, but their slick, narrow surfaces were untenable; just like a person cannot climb up a glass window, there was no way that coral could adhere to the jackets’ steep-sloped steel.

But this assumption, though right in principle, failed to account for a mix of other critters – the pioneer species, like tube worms, mussels and clams – that could stick to smooth vertical surfaces, and which would provide the type of substrate that other species could latch onto (Fariñas-Franco, et al. 75-76). Shortly after the rigs started being installed in 1954, these species began colonizing the jackets before any other species could, and this was enough to jumpstart the biological communities that inhabit the rigs to this day.

Here’s how the process works: over the course of many generations, the husks and shells of the pioneer species accumulate on the metal columns’ surfaces, creating a rockier, more porous substrate that corals can latch onto. As the corals grow, they secrete their own hard skeletons onto the columns, which are already covered by a thin film of discarded exoskeletons. The buildup of this material over several generations increases the complexity of the substrate, rendering the legs no longer uniform and smooth, but craggy and porous (Kilson, et al. 1072-1073).

By this point, the rigs are full-fledged coral reefs – the unscalable metal beams, now covered by a thick coat of generations of sea life, seem more like aquatic rock-climbing walls than industrial infrastructure (France 105-106; Manoudis 211-214; Fariñas-Franco, et al. 90-91). Small fish flock to the rigs, where they can deposit their eggs on the cross-beams and feed from the abundance of algae and coral, and the larger fish follow close behind (Kilson, et al. 1069-1070). Together, these lifeforms create the basis for a diverse, self-sustaining population of marine life that flourishes in the unlikeliest of places.

By the 1970s, then, the fishermen’s wish had been granted in the form of these teeming communities, and marine biologists, buoyed by the power of retrospect, had no trouble explaining what had happened since the rigs started popping up in the Gulf 20 years before (Ajemian, et al. 12-13, 17-18; Syc, et al. 458-459, 463-466). The creatures of the Gulf, once dispersed over wide swaths, were now huddling in cities that rose hundreds of feet above the seafloor – as early as 1984, scientific studies showed that these aquatic metropolises provided over a quarter of the Gulf’s hard bottom habitat (Jørgensen 345). Almost none of these studies, though, sought to ask whether the jackets were helping produce life or simply assembling it into concentrated communities that were ideal for fishermen, and therefore conducive to overfishing (Charter).

***

Soon after the fishermen started flocking to the rigs, oil companies saw an opportunity not to be missed: in the absence of any opposing science, the abundant communities surrounding the jackets and the eager fishermen who came to meet them offered a heartwarming image that could offset any popular impression of oil companies as greedy behemoths. In the early 1980s, companies like Phillips Petroleum started running ad campaigns that showed fishing boats nestled contentedly against rigs while touting platforms in the Gulf of Mexico as “part of an ongoing plan...to not just take from the earth, but to give back as well” (qtd. in Jørgensen 343). Respected newspapers like The Wall Street Journal meanwhile started taking note, publishing articles that lauded the rigs as “oases...in underwater deserts” (355; Sterba 1).

The political traction that came from this positive media attention could not have come at a more convenient time for the oil industry. Many of the rigs installed in the 1950s were approaching their anticipated expiration, meaning that soon, oil companies would have to spend millions of dollars on decommissioning obsolete rigs (348). But if the federal government could be convinced to alter the terms of the Idle Iron policy and allow some of the rig jackets to be left in the ocean by virtue of their status as productive marine habitats, the oil industry could curtail decommissioning expenses by millions of dollars.

In 1986, Congress granted the industry’s request, ratifying the “Rigs-to-Reefs” policy, which allowed disused jackets to be left in the Gulf on the grounds that they provided “a national resource of tremendous public and private value” (qtd. in Jørgensen 347). Today, over 500 retired rigs sit off the Gulf Coast, with 392 in Louisiana waters alone. Some rest on their sides like sleeping giants, and others have had their top 85 feet removed so that they can remain upright while large boats pass above (Charter, et al. 10, 55).

The process of “reefing” pares down the decommissioning procedure so that it is significantly cheaper: the wells are still plugged up, and the platform is removed, but instead of towing the jacket hundreds of miles back to shore, the rig jackets – some of them as tall as 1,500 feet, eclipsing the Eiffel Tower – are either left in place or moved a much shorter distance to a state-designated reefing zone (Charter et al. 86-88). The company must then donate half of its declared savings to a state-run Artificial Reef Fund devoted to maintaining and monitoring the artificial reefs. Mike McDonough, whose job as Louisiana’s Artificial Reef Coordinator wouldn’t exist without the fund, says the donation is intended “to prevent the appearance of ocean dumping, and ensure that the rig operators really have some skin in the game” (McDonough).

But could it be that the petroleum industry’s bottom line and the health of an entire ecosystem really line up as flawlessly as the oil industry and federal government have suggested for years? Is it possible that a program which, according to conservative estimates, has saved oil companies over $90 million, is an unquestionably good thing for the Gulf’s ecology (Charter etal, 87)?

Richard, who has been studying the Rigs-to-Reefs program since its inception, firmly believes that the abundant natural life dwelling on and around the converted jackets belies an essential truth – the artificial reefs are not creating new life, he claims, but rather, attracting biomass which already exists. “Listen,” Richard tells us, “I know of No – with a capital N – peer-reviewed, objective science...that can demonstrate that the rigs support primary production. Yes, they attract fish, and yes, you can go catch them, but they are not producing biomass” (Charter). The evidence we have, he argues, suggests that virtually all of the life on the rigs would have existed regardless of the jackets’ presence in the Gulf, and that the high concentrations of fish around the converted jackets have caused overfishing of species such as red snapper (Charter, et al. 26, 98).

Richard’s objections, though, are largely falling on deaf ears – the Rigs-to-Reefs program in the Gulf of Mexico seems to be dying a natural death, and will probably continue without a hitch until it finally comes to a quiet standstill. Today, there are a little over 2,000 active rigs in the Gulf, and “about 200 are removed each year,” Mike tells us. “Rig installations are fewer than a handful each year,” he adds, meaning it will probably be a little over ten years before Rigs-to-Reefs applications stop coming in altogether.

“Lately, we’ve been getting about 10-12 artificial reef applications per year,” he says, noting that this number, which was as high as 30 in 2007, has probably plummeted because most derelict rigs are so far from reefing zones that the projected cost of reefing offsets any potential savings on decommissioning (McDonough). A few more traditional jackets will be converted to reefs in the next few years, and then there will be a period of relative silence in the Gulf’s Rigs-to-Reefs program – “we can see the [program’s] twilight, I guess,” Mike says.

Drilling in the Gulf, though, is far from over – companies are switching from traditional rigs to deepwater, “floating” ones, almost all of which are extremely productive and expected to last for several more decades. But who’s to say what will happen in twenty to thirty years, when many of these rigs will reach the ends of their lifespans? So far, only one has been decommissioned, and a major piece of it – the spar, a 400-foot long tube-shaped structure designed to protect vertical pipelines – was towed to a reef zone and deposited on the seafloor (McDonough). “The owner of the rig didn’t know how to get the spar into port, or how to get it out of the water and into a barge,” Mike says, “so towing it to a reef site was going to be cheaper.”

The Rigs-to-Reefs program in the Gulf may or may not have a renaissance down the line, but its legacy is clear: coral and fish have made homes out of hundreds of abandoned jackets, and oil companies and fishermen have reaped the benefits. Though the question remains whether the jackets provide valuable habitats or just offer a convenient excuse for corporations to dump their trash, their presence has profoundly altered the Gulf of Mexico, and will continue to for years to come.

WORKS CITED

Read more

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed; We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

After celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 17, the Civil Rights leader gave us this strong reminder of the fight for diversity, equity and inclusion that we are still working toward today. There is no doubt that the last two years in the United States have been extremely difficult as a country, particularly dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and then facing a reckoning of racial inequalities in the aftermath of the George Floyd arrest and death, among others in 2020.

Unfortunately, while we continue to deal with the pandemic on day-to-day basis and it never seems get better, it seems the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 really made waves across the country and helped many recognize the benefits of diversity, especially in the workforce. After all, as McKinsey & Co. found in their latest report, Diversity Wins, the “most diverse companies are more likely to outperform less diverse peers in profitability. In the case of gender diversity, it was by 25%. In the case of ethnic diversity, that number jumps to 36%.”

But it’s not just that, having a diverse population in an inclusive environment generates different ideas and perspectives, enhances production, improves overall engagement, sparks innovation, plus many other benefits. It’s nothing but good things!

With this continued spotlight on diversity, equity and inclusion, you can see the tide is changing. Here are some ways you can promote these things in your workplace:

· Understand unconscious bias and build awareness

· Communicate the importance of managing bias

· Promote pay equity

· Develop a strategic training program

· Acknowledge and respect holidays of all cultures

· Make it easy for your coworkers to participate in employee resource groups

· Mix up your teams

· Facilitate ongoing feedback

· Assess current company policies

Also be a part of this changing landscape by donating to various organizations across the United States, including the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), plus so many more.

Read more