Friday, December 31, 2021

Judge resigns over racist home video capturing N-word use

Lafayette City Court Judge Michelle Odinet resigned Friday, weeks after a video surfaced that depicted her using racist remarks as she and her family watched security footage of an attempted burglary at their home.

“I take full responsibility for the hurtful words used to describe the individual who burglarized the vehicles at my home. I am sorry for the pain that I have caused my community and ask for your forgiveness, as my words did not foster the public’s confidence and integrity for the judiciary,” Odinet said in a letter submitted to the Louisiana Supreme Court filed by her attorney Dane Ciolino.

Ciolino told HuffPost Odinet “understands that this is the end of her public service, but only the beginning of what she must to do to earn the forgiveness of the community.”

Odinet confirmed the video, published by The Current on Dec. 13, was shot in her home. It depicts a television showing security footage of a burglary as several voices laugh and recap the incident while repeatedly using the N-word. Ciolino told The New York Times Odinet was one of the voices heard using a slur in the video.

After the video surfaced, Odinet asked for "forgiveness and understanding", claiming she had taken a sedative at the time of the video and had “zero recollection” of the incident. She requested an unpaid leave ob absence before being temporarily disqualified from the bench.

Ciolino told HuffPost Odinet, who has four adult children, is “humiliated, embarrassed and sorry for what she has done and the trouble that she has caused to her community.”

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

New laws in 2022 address chained pets, among other things

As of January, it will be illegal to chain up a dog in Texas. Any outdoor restraint must be lighter and more flexible, and dogs must have adequate shelter, shade and water. Fines can go as high as $500 for first offenses, and repeat offenders could get jail time.

“Too many dogs are seen like burglar alarms or some sort of security device instead of the living beings that they are, and they’re kept in chains,” said Rachel Wolf of VOICE for Animals, an animal rights group.

Gov. Greg Abbott, who first vetoed the law, signed a new version after he was hit by a blizzard of tweets with the hashtag #AbbottHatesDogs.

A new law in Nevada makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to homeowners or charge more based on their dogs’ breeds. Insurers say they need to be able to account for the potential liability brought on by potentially aggressive animals, but supporters said the law protects pet owners from “breed discrimination.”

by Pete Williams | NBC NEWS

California man allegedly planned to drive to White House, kill Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci

DES MOINES, Iowa — An armed California man was arrested recently in Iowa while allegedly on his way to the White House.

Police say the man, identified as 25-year-old Kuachua Brillion Xiong, had an assault rifle and ammunition in his possession, as well as a "hit list" that named President Joe Biden; Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president's chief medical advisor; Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, formerly known as Facebook; and former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Xiong was pulled over on Dec. 21 after police observed him driving aggressively, according to a criminal complaint. Police suspected he could be planning criminal activity due to the man’s behavior. During the traffic stop he “began talking about his disapproval for government due to the sex abuse of children, some of which that has occurred by President Biden," he said.

Xiong was taken to the Cass County Sheriff’s Office for further questioning.

During an interview, Xiong allegedly told authorities he'd worked at a grocery store in Merced, California, until two months ago – and that his employment was a “cover until called upon by God to combat evil demons in the White House,” according to the criminal complaint.

Police say Xiong said he allegedly began gathering equipment to carry out the deed, including an assault rifle with magazines, ammunition, body armor, medical supplies, dark clothing, a grappling hook, food and cash, according to the complaint.

Xiong allegedly told to police that he left his home in Sacramento on Dec. 18 to drive straight to the White House to kill people in power, and added that he would not have stopped if he had not been pulled over by the authorities, the complaint details.

Police say he allegedly compiled his “hit list” of “evil” people to kill via videos on TikTok. Xiong allegedly stated he would kill Biden unless the president promised to comply with his demands, the complaint added.

“When concluding the interview, (Xiong) stated that nothing would stop him from carrying out his plan of gaining access to the White House and killing the persons on his ‘hit list.’

Xiong allegedly said that if released from custody, he would immediately resume traveling to the White House in Washington, D.C. and ‘do whatever it takes’ to complete his plan,” Secret Service Special Agent Justin Larson wrote in the complaint. “(The man) stated that he has no intention of returning to California to see his family because he plans on dying while fighting evil demons at the White House.”

The defendant's attorneys filed a notice Thursday that he intends to rely on an insanity defense at trial.

The QAnon conspiracy theory holds the false belief that high-level government figures, Democrats and celebrities are secretly engaged in child sex trafficking.

Xiong has been charged with one count of threats to a former president, according to the criminal complaint, although it's possible additional charges could be added by a grand jury in a later indictment. Iowa court records show the man also was cited for speeding.

Reporter William Morris contributed to this report.

Science Says You Should Drink This Much Coffee in 2022

I know those two thoughts don't necessarily go together, so let me explain. We start with the fact that I'm all for self-improvement, but I'm not the biggest fan of New Year's Resolution.

Tying progress to the start of the year seems like a lot of unnecessary pressure. Also, for a lot of people (myself included), the 10 days or so before January 1 (the last few days of pre-Christmas planning and shopping, through a 7 or 10 day vacation period) are likely to be some of the least-self-improving days of the year.

So, if you're going to tie a resolution to the calendar like this, I think it makes sense to give yourself a chance to score a fast, easy, meaningful win.

I'd advise something that you can accomplish quickly, track easily, and that will provide both immediate and long-term advantages.

All of which leads us to coffee, and drinking more of it.

Why? Because study after study seems to suggest it has significant long-term health benefits. Among a few of the highlights:

A 2018 study of 500,000 British adults over a full decade showed that coffee drinkers were 10 percent to 15 percent less likely to die from any cause than non-drinkers, possibly according to the study authors, because, "coffee contains more than 1,000 chemical compounds including antioxidants, which help protect cells from damage."

In 2017, researchers funded by the American Heart Association and the University of Colorado School of Medicine found that every additional cup of coffee people drink each day drops their risk of heart failure or stroke by 8 percent.

A smaller study from Stanford University suggested that people who drink caffeinated coffee (but not decaf, sorry) live longer, perhaps because the caffeine counteracts naturally occurring inflammation, which is in turn associated with 90 percent of all noncommunicable diseases of aging, according to the study's author.

Another big study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, which 200,000 doctors and nurses over 30 years, found a correlation between increased coffee consumption and lower risk of death from heart disease, stroke, diabetes, neurological disease, even suicide.

Finally, drinking "even more coffee" provides an incremental benefit over drinking "more coffee," up to a surprisingly high count, according to a 10-year study of almost 20,000 people over 10 years. ("Our findings suggest that drinking four cups of coffee each day can be part of a healthy diet in healthy people", said one of the study's authors.)

Truly we could go on and on, but let's be sure to add one of the newest studies, which also suggests a short-term benefit many coffee drinkers might be familiar with: better moods.

A study of 5,000 European adults suggested that drinking a cup of coffee (containing about 75 milligrams of caffeine) every four hours can result in feeling better moods during the day.

In our enthusiasm, we should add a caveat: Stop at five cups. Once you get past that, according to a study of nearly 350,000 coffee-drinkers from the University of South Australia, you might start to increase the risk of heart disease.

"Based on our data, six [cups] was the tipping point where caffeine started to negatively affect cardiovascular risk," Hyppnen said.

Now, back to the New Year and the calendar. Because as new habits go, resolving to drink a bit more coffee probably isn't a heavy lift for a lot of people.

It's easy to add to your routine, doesn't cost a lot -- and doesn't require making a major lifestyle change. Plus, for a lot of people, it's actually quite enjoyable.

So, here's to 2022. Maybe you'll raise a glass of whatever your other favorite beverage might be to toast the new year, tonight.

But in the morning? Drink a bit more coffee. And start the new year with a resolution you can actually keep.

By Bill Murphy Jr.

Trucker Rogel Aguilera-Mederos' sentence reduced from 110 to 10 years after public outcry

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has commuted the sentence of truck driver Rogel Aguilera-Mederos to 10 years with eligibility for parole in five. The 26-year-old was originally given a 110 year sentence for a 2019 crash that killed four people, but had his sentence reduced after public outcry over Colorado's mandatory sentencing laws.

Polis announced the news Thursday along with two other commutations, fifteen individual pardons, and an executive order granting 1,351 pardons for those convicted of possessing two ounces or less of marijuana. In Aguilera-Mederos' commutation letter, Polis said he granted the commutation because the sentencing was disproportionate for a "tragic but unintentional act."

"The length of your 110-year sentence is simply not commensurate with your actions, nor with penalties handed down to others for similar crimes," Polis said in the letter. "There is an urgency to remedy this unjust sentence and restore confidence in the uniformity and fairness of our criminal justice system, and consequently I have chosen to commute your sentence now."

Aguilera-Mederos said the crash occurred after his brakes malfunctioned while he was driving on Colorado's Interstate 70. But prosecutors argued that the trucker missed a runaway truck ramp that could have prevented the crash. Dozens were injured, and four — Miguel Angel Lamas Arellano, 24; Doyle Harrison, 61; Stanley Politano, 69; and William Bailey, 67 — were killed, leading to Aguilera-Mederos' 27 charges.

Local police said no alcohol or drugs were involved in the crash, according to CBS Denver.

During sentencing, Aguilera-Mederos said that he regretted the crash and that he wished he had died instead of the other victims.

"My life is not a happy life," Aguilera-Mederos told CBS Denver. "It is a very sad life because four people died."

Because of minimum sentencing laws in Colorado, Aguilera-Mederos was sentenced to 110 years in prison for the charges, which included vehicular homicide. But his sentencing received national attention, with over three million people signing a petition asking for him to receive clemency.

"We believe justice has finally come to light for Rogel," Aguilera-Mederos' lawyer James Colgan said on Thursday. "Unfortunately, you know, there's people, there's victims in this case and we feel for those people and their families. But as it relates to Rogel and the justice system that, that he's had to deal with, we feel grateful."

Polis said that he hoped Aguilera-Mederos' case would bring more attention to mandatory minimum and sentencing laws and encouraged the man to seek "restorative justice opportunities" for the families and the community he impacted. He also noted that a family member of Aguilera-Mederos works in the governor's office, but said he wasn't involved and had no knowledge of the trucker's commutation.

"You have wondered why your life was spared when other lives were taken," Polis wrote to Aguilera-Mederos on Thursday. "You will struggle with this burden of this event for the rest of your life, but never forget that because of this event, countless others will struggle with the loss of their loved ones or injuries as well. And you will serve your just sentence."

Kim Kardashian West, who had advocated for his sentence to be commuted, celebrated the news of Aguilera-Mederos' commutation on Twitter.

"This case was a clear example of why mandatory minimums don't work and need to be abolished. I'm grateful to Governor Polis for his empathy and leadership on this case," Kardashian West tweeted. "While his new sentence is ten years, he will now have an opportunity to come home in five years and be with his son and wife."

Michael Roppolo contributed reporting.

First published on December 30, 2021 / 6:13 PM

© 2021 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Gas prices up, Biden's responsible; gas prices down, total silence!

MIAMI, FL - The far-right conservative republicans in the United States are a very interesting characters because among other things, they can't hide their double-standard and, on top of that, they spice up the situation with a blatant ignorance of the topics they usually refer to.

Little by little, they've been showing their colors in the most olympic way. It's been a race of decades and they are persuaded to win it.

A few weeks ago, the gas prices went up in the United States, an economic situation that was covered in an ample way and foreseen months in advance because it was the natural economic result of the "wake up" situation after the pandemic. A total economic and private matter, with no responsibility whatsoever regarding the presidency. However, the far-right conservative republicans put in place, as always, a propaganda blaming president Biden for the increment of gas prices.

Funny enough, a few weeks later, as foreseen by the experts in the field, gas prices are going down as we speak.

Now, for some mysterious reason, the far-right conservative republicans are absolutely silenced on the matter and given their own analysis, it should be president Biden's responsibility as well, right? If so, why our friends from the fart-right don't speak up to, let's say, congratulate president Biden for the accomplishment of lower gas prices, at least with the same emphasis they used to condemn him because of the high gas prices.

Am I right or there is something really unfair with the far-right conservative republicans and their judgment?

Just sayin'!

Originally reported by Ricardo Martinez

Thursday, December 23, 2021

Kim Potter, ex-Minnesota officer, found guilty of manslaughter in death of Daunte Wright

A Minneapolis jury on Thursday convicted former police officer Kim Potter on all charges she faced for fatally shooting Black motorist Daunte Wright — with a gun and not her Taser — earlier this year. Potter showed no emotion as the Hennepin County panel found her guilty of first-degree manslaughter, meaning she improperly used “such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable.” The former Brooklyn Center officer said she accidentally killed Wright, shooting him with her Glock when she meant to fire her Taser. Jurors also found the white former officer guilty of second-degree manslaughter charge, which only required a finding of “culpable negligence” that created “unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” Jurors found her guilty of the lesser charge on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. CST, according to jury forms read in court. The panel reached its verdict on the more serious charge on Thursday at 11:40 a.m., jurors said on their verdict form. "We have a degree of accountability for Daunte’s death," Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison told reporters outside court. "Accountability is not justice ... justice is beyond the reach that we have in this life for Daunte. But accountability is an important step, a critical, necessary step on the road to justice for us all.” The victim's mother, Katie Bryant, thanked prosecutors and community supporters during this “long fight for accountability." “The moment that we heard 'guilty' on manslaughter 1, emotions — every single emotion that you could imagine — just running through your body at that moment," Bryant said of her reaction to the verdicts. "I kind of let out a yelp because it was built up in the anticipation of what was to come while we were waiting for the last few days." Potter faces a maximum of 15 years behind bars. The jury consisted of one Black person, two Asian American people and nine white people. Judge Regina Chu ordered Potter taken into custody with her bail revoked, over the objections of defense attorneys. Chu said Potter is looking at serious time behind bars "and I am going to require that she be taken into custody and held without bail.” “I cannot treat this case any differently than any other case,” Chu said. While the verdicts were read, and in the moments of courtroom argument immediately after, was not demonstrative other than a brief moment when she crossed herself. Potter was handcuffed and both of her attorneys put their hands on her shoulders before she was taken away. Her sentencing was set for Feb. 18. Ellison said he felt sympathy for Potter and her family, but added: "She will be able to correspond with them and sit with them no matter what happens. But the Wrights won't be able to talk to Daunte." Wright’s fatal shooting on April 11 happened about 10 miles from the courthouse where former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was on trial for the slaying of George Floyd. Days later, Chauvin, who is white, was convicted of second and third-degree murder, as well as second-degree manslaughter, in the May 25, 2020, killing of Floyd, a Black man, whose death touched off a summer of national protests calling for an end to institutional racism. Potter’s trial was held in the same courtroom where Chauvin’s trial was carried out. Potter's defense team left the courthouse without speaking to reporters on Thursday. But as they were arguing for continued freedom on bail, defense attorney Earl Gray repeated Potter's insistence at trial that Wright's death was an "accident." “She’s not going to run, she’s obviously, she’s not going to commit any more crimes," Gray told the judge. “She’s been convicted of an accident. She’s been convicted of being reckless.” A tearful Potter testified in her own defense last week and described a “chaotic” scene that required her to make a split-second decision. Wright was being arrested on an outstanding weapons charge when he tried getting back into his car. Potter testified that she feared for the safety of another officer, Sgt. Mychal Johnson, who was struggling with Wright from the passenger side. Potter holstered her Glock on her right, dominant side and her Taser on the left. The prosecution played video from Potter’s body camera for jurors, showing how the officer had the Glock in her hand for at least five seconds before firing the deadly round. The Glock used to kill Wright weighed 2.11 pounds, compared to the .94-pound Taser that emanates light and needed a safety switch to be pulled before use, prosecutors said.

Originally posted by David K. Li NBCNews

Wednesday, December 22, 2021

The Case of Rogel Aguilera-Mederos, racism or not?

Rogel Aguilera-Mederos is a semi-truck driver who was sentenced to 110 years in prison in Colorado  on December 13, 2021, after being convicted of 27 counts stemming from a fatal 2019 accident that killed four people along Interstate 70.
A petition drive urging Colorado’s governor to grant Aguilera-Mederos, then 23, a sentence commutation or clemency has been signed by more than 4.2 million people as of December 19, 2021. His full name is sometimes given as Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos.
In addition, the hashtag #NoTrucksToColorado is trending on TikTok, Twitter and Facebook, as many truckers say they will not travel through Colorado as a result of what they believe to be an extreme sentence. “Me and my brother have decided that we (Brown Eagle LLC) have joined the protest and are not getting any loads out of or to Colorado until Rogel gets justice cause 110 years is ridiculous. The company should be held accountable!” wrote one trucker on Twitter.
“We are aware of this issue, the Governor and his team review each clemency application individually,” the Colorado governor’s office told 9News.
Colorado judge A. Bruce Jones sentenced Aguilera-Mederos to 110 years in prison — effectively a life sentence — for the crash, which occurred when Aguilera-Mederos’s semi-truck rammed into stopped traffic on April 25, 2019.
According to the Associated Press, he told investigators at the time that “his brakes had failed on his truck that was hauling lumber and he noticed his truck was traveling 85 mph … before the crash.” Prosecutors said he could have used a runaway truck ramp but instead rammed into the stopped traffic, causing a 28-vehicle crash, the Associated Press reported.
In addition to the four who died, six people were wounded and “fire began to engulf the crash scene, triggering explosions and a fire so intense that it melted the roadway and metal off cars,” according to the Associated Press.
“I-70 crash suspect in custody. Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos (DOB: 11/21/95) arrested for suspicion of multiple counts of Vehicular Homicide,” wrote Lakewood police at the time.
In October 2021 a jury found Aguilera-Mederos guilty of 27 counts, including four counts of vehicular homicide and four counts of careless driving causing death, according to the Denver Post.
Jones said Colorado’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws forced the lengthy sentence, requiring him to issue consecutive sentences. “I will state that if I had the discretion, it would not be my sentence,” the judge said, according to the outlet.
“In all victim impact statements I read, I did not glean from them someone saying, ‘He should be in prison for the rest of his life, and he should never, ever get out,” Jones said, according to 9News. “Far from it. There was forgiveness reflected in those statements, but also a desire that he be punished and serve time in prison, and I share those sentiments.”
Domingo Garcia, the national president of LULAC, a Latino civil rights organization, told The Denver Channel that the sentence was not just and blamed the district attorney, Alexis King, for filing so many charges. As a result of the number of charges filed, the consecutive terms added up to a life sentence, Garcia said.
“This case is so egregious,” Garcia said to the television station. “It boggles the mind that here we are in 2021 and that somebody who was not intoxicated, not on drugs… It’s an accident, the brakes went out. But here’s the Latino driver, he gets charged, convicted and given 110 years of prison on his first offense.”
The DA has defended the prosecution.
King told The Denver Channel in part, “We initiated plea negotiations but Mr. Aguilera-Mederos declined to consider anything other than a traffic ticket. The facts and consequences of his decisions that day were extraordinary enough to support pursuing first-degree assault charges. Ethically, we do not – nor can we – pick and choose between victims in charging. The jury’s thoughtful verdict reflects the strength of the evidence presented and recognizes the harm caused to the victims. The sentence – which our office requested the minimum for – is within the purview of the court and reflects the judgment of the legislature. Just as the law mandates this outcome, it also provides future opportunity to revisit the sentence, and we will again pursue an appropriate outcome if that opportunity arises, after consulting with the victims and survivors and receiving their input.”
Former DA Peter Weir filed the charges, according to Westword.
According to Westword, the defense argued that his truck had multiple mechanical problems. When his brakes failed, Aguilera-Mederos testified that he considered but ruled out other options, worrying he would “wind up in the path of oncoming traffic on the other side of the highway” or cause an explosion if he crashed into a bridge. He swerved to slow down, the site reported.
The Denver Post reported that Aguilera-Mederos tried to flee the scene.
A petition to help Aguilera-Mederos has been signed by 4.2 million people.
“We all know of the crash that happened on I-70 in Denver, Colorado. Most of us have heard facts in the case. Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos, 23 has nothing on his driving record, or on his criminal history. He had complied with every single request by the Jefferson County courts, and investigators on the case,” the petition says.
“He’s passed all of the drug and alcohol tests that were given including a chemical test. This accident was not intentional, nor was it a criminal act on the drivers part. No one but the trucking company he is/was employed by should be held accountable for this accident.”
It continues: “No, we are not trying to make it seem any less of a tragic accident that it is because yes, lives were lost. We are trying to hold the person who needs to be held responsible, responsible. The trucking company has had several inspections since 2017, with several mechanical violations.”
It adds, “There are many things Rogel could have done to avoid the courts, but he took responsibility showed up and severely apologized to the victims families. Some of the families even offered Forgiveness. Rogel is not a criminal, the company he was working for knew the federal laws that go into truck driving but they failed to follow those laws. Rogel has said several times that he wishes he had the courage to crash and take his own life that day, this tragic accident wasn’t done with Intent, it wasnt a criminal act, it was an accident. Since he has been sentenced, i have changed this to granting Rogel clemency or commutation-as time served.”
Aguilera-Mederos spoke to a reporter with CBS4 from the local jail. “I am crying all the time, I think about it and I have flashbacks,” he told journalist Rick Sallinger before he was sentenced.
He told Sallinger he tried to avoid the vehicles. “My life is not a happy life. It is a very sad life because four people died,” he said in that interview.
The station reported that he could have pulled off a runaway truck ramp, but explained, “When you lost your brakes, your mind is blocking.”
During his sentencing hearing, he also showed great remorse. “I am not a criminal. I am not a murderer. I am not a killer. When I look at my charges, we are talking about a murderer, which is not me. I have never thought about hurting anybody in my entire life,” he said during his sentencing, according to The Denver Post. The outlet reported that he wept, saying, “I lost my brakes. The truck drivers, they know it’s a hard moment, you can’t do anything. You can’t do anything.”
According to the Associated Press, Aguilera-Mederos is “a green card holder from Cuba” who was living in Houston at the time of the crash.
He had no prior criminal record, and his lawyer said in court that he valued his life in America, according to CBS Denver. 9News Legal Expert Scott Robinson told the 9News television station that the judge has the ability to review the sentence.
“Colorado’s violent crimes statute gives judges some discretion after 180 days have passed,” Robinson said to 9News. “Here, the sentencing judge, Bruce Jones, will have an opportunity to determine whether there were unusual and extenuating circumstances which would justify a reduction in the sentences imposed.”
According to The Denver Post, “Jones said he may revise the sentence in the future if Aguilera-Mederos seeks a review, and that he had ‘no desire to see’ Aguilera-Mederos in prison for the rest of his life.”
According to Westword, Aguilera-Mederos is indigent.

Originally reported by: Jessica McBride

Saturday, November 27, 2021

Bittersweet Legal Outcome

It’s a good thing justice was served in the case of Ahmoud Arbery. The conviction and sentencing of these three killers is definitely a blow of fresh air to the already stricken and hurt black community.

However, after the whole thing happened, when we think about it calmly, with cool head, relaxed, you realize that there are several reflections that in any case shouldn’t be there in the first place.

For instance, why we get so happy and wired after the verdict? Isn’t it obvious? Why it has to be nationally celebrated such an evident murder case? Why be so content with the bare minimum? Is it fair that the whole thing could’ve been forgotten if it weren’t because a leaked video and national protests.

How used we are of unjust sentences and white privilege that we feel obliged to celebrate when a just sentence is served, isn’t that sad? Or in any case isn’t that a sign of re-visit the whole justice system and the systemic racism that is permeating each and every institution in America?

At this point, the celebration turns into frustration, again; into desperation, again; into hope, again. Is there real hope that someday such evident cases of blatant racism and clear murder when the victim is a person of color will be judged no matter the race? Would that be possible in America?

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

The Rittenhouse trial or circus.

Miami, FL - At this point, I really don't know what's left to watch in the Rittenhouse trial: the judge making racial jokes or Rittenhouse attempt to a mockery tearless cry a-la-Hollywood style or the very accused reaching into a raffle drum and drew numbered slips that determined which of the 18 jurors who sat through the case would deliberate and which ones would be dismissed as alternates, which is a never-seen thing according not only to the general public but to specialized attorneys and journalists. All that before deliberations even started.

Today, 7 women, 5 men and 1 person of color will decide the future of Rittenhouse that, I hope for the well-being of the nation, the jury find him guilty because, he is. If you see the video, which is fully documented and even with different angles of vision, you can tell with no doubt that he not only started the whole situation, which is one of the most solid arguments of the prosecution: "You can't argue self-defense when you start the crisis", but you can clearly see that the accused doesn't have any respect for human life.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a specialist in legal matters, but I have common sense, criteria and know a thing or two about certain procedures related to what happened that night and I can state, confidently, that the accused is absolutely guilty of all the charges.

However, if he is acquitted or at least from the major charges, it will be a natural consequence of a racist-based criminal justice system, a systemic racism in the fabric of the American society and it will propel a social and civil unrest similar to the one caused by Floyd's death and to be honest, I think it will be totally fair because the accused deserves to be in prison for murdering to people and hurting a third one based only on his skin color and his racism, prejudice and utter ignorance of what morality, empathy and a peaceful society mean.

RM

Monday, November 15, 2021

16-year-old dies in police custody following pursuit that ended in Miami-Dade County

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Fla. – The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating after a 16-year-old boy died Sunday night following a police chase that started in Hollywood and ended in Miami-Dade County.

According to Miami-Dade police, Hollywood police officers were chasing the teen, who was suspected of carjacking someone and then fleeing with the victim’s vehicle – a black 2018 Alfa Romeo.

Police said the Miami-Dade Police Department’s helicopter provided air support as the teen led officers into the Northside District, where he crashed the stolen car in the area of Northwest 27th Avenue and 62nd Street around 9:35 p.m.

Authorities said the teen was taken into custody by Hollywood police.

Miami-Dade Fire Rescue crews also responded to the area and treated the teen at the scene, police said.

Authorities said the teen was handed over into the custody of Miami-Dade police, and at some point, he became unconscious.

Police said he was then transported by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue to Hialeah Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

A cause of death has not been released.

The teen’s identity is also being withheld at this time.

Copyright 2021 by WPLG Local10.com - All rights reserved.


Monday, November 8, 2021

Mental Health Issues

MIAMI - I was talking to a friend the other day about mental health issues and she told me about how sad were the circumstances under which the “crazy people” live in any given asylum; she also mentioned her friend’s son which is schizophrenic and another friend which is bipolar. For a minute, everything went fine into the conversation; however, my mind seemed to be heading to a different destination, because all of a sudden, I told her to clarify that I wasn’t referring to those particular mental health issues, which are very serious but not necessarily hidden or common in society, not as much as the ones I was referring to: depression and/or anxiety.

The fact that people in general don’t seem to see depression and/or anxiety as mental health issues is maybe the reason why there is such a large incidence of those issues in society today. And yes, they are mental health conditions that must be addressed as fast as possible and be treated by professionals in the medical field, medical practitioners specifically in that matter of mind issues, be a psychologist, psychiatrist or similar. Please, don’t even think about getting “medical advice” regarding mental health from people not only with no medical expertise in that delicate field but serious lack of any kind of training, much less professional training. I’m talking specifically of religious leaders such as pastors, priests, spiritual coaches and similar, let along charlatans of fairs such as card readers, astrologists or psychics.

It’s very important to understand how serious mental health issues are for our well-being and when I say mental health, I’m referring not only the "big problems" but specifically to those issues that nobody seems to care because their “normal” or “everybody have them” or “give it time to heal”.

People, depression and/or anxiety is serious business and we can’t let them slip into our lives because they can ruin it pretty bad and in the worst-case scenario, they can literally kill us.

RM

Saturday, November 6, 2021

Dangers of pseudo-science

Pseudoscience is anything that is peddled as being scientifically-based but is, in fact, not. That’s a big, broad definition for a big, broad topic. Pseudoscience is often composed of people who want to feel like they have some semblance of control over a situation (often an emotionally fraught one) and those looking to make money by taking advantage of other people by using technical-sounding jargon. Let’s break down these two scenarios while also acknowledging that they are not mutually exclusive.

There is a lot of uncertainty in the health care realm. We know so much while still understanding so little. We quickly reach the limitations of our medical knowledge in discussion about disease, how the body reacts to disease and injury, nutrition, etc. Additionally, our knowledge is constantly changing as we learn more. At some point in life, every single person will feel powerless over what is happening to their body, and that’s not a good feeling. It’s scary. The natural reaction is to look for a way to feel more in control of the situation. It’s an unsettling truth that we don’t have all of the answers and that sometimes the old adage “time will tell” is the best we have or “I don’t know, but maybe” is the best we can do. This place of vulnerability and despair is easy to take advantage of. Often, if someone simply says “Oh, they just don’t know but this thing WORKS,” those who are desperate will easily cling to whatever that thing is, regardless of plausibility. This is where pseudoscience comes in. It’s easy to take advantage of an emotionally fraught situation. People grappling with death or health challenges are looking for any advantage they can to hold on to every last second out of their lives. Enter, pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience can be difficult to pick out because one of its hallmarks is to use technical-sounding language to lend an air of legitimacy to whatever the thing is (e.g., vaginal steaming, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc.). Oftentimes, it’s created as a way to make fast cash—think essential oils and COVID-19. Sometimes it’s created out of a desire for an easy answer. Sometimes, it’s all of these things. Whatever the reason, pseudoscience is a big problem.

Let’s walk through an example of pseudoscience during this pandemic. In the desperation for a cure and a prevention (other than physically distancing, hand-washing, and mask-wearing, that is) the internet was alight with a myriad of suggestions. In a world shrouded in uncertainty and desperation, people were and still are willing to cling to any number of those suggestions, one of which was colloidal silver. Collodial silver has no real medical use. It can and does have serious side effects including turning your body blue, kidney damage, seizures, and possible detrimental interactions with other drugs that you might be taking. With these potential side effects in mind and the fact that colloidal silver doesn’t have any documented medical benefit, this isn’t something that should be taken thoughtlessly or “just in case.” It can, does, and has had, serious consequences. Also, it’s a waste of money, which is something few people can afford right now.

With 5 Short Words, the CEO of McDonald's Just Displayed a Complete Lack of Emotional Intelligence



It's impressive, actually: managing to break all the basic rules of emotional intelligence at once.

This is a story about McDonald’s, emotional intelligence -- and what happens when someone displays almost no emotional intelligence at all.

Here's the background. It starts with two tragedies in Chicago earlier this year:

First, a 13-year-old named Adam Toledo was shot and killed by Chicago police.

Then, a 7-year-old girl named Jaslyn Adams was killed while sitting in a Chicago McDonald's drive-through.

The day after the shooting that took Adams's life, Mayor Lori Lightfoot visited McDonald's headquarters in Chicago. She spoke with CEO Chris Kempczinski, and then Kempczinski texted Mayor Lightfoot.

Activists eventually used a Freedom of Information Act request to learn what he said to her. In what turned out to be the most important part, Kempczinski's texts read like this:

"p.s. tragic shootings in last week, both at our restaurant yesterday and with Adam Toldeo. With both, the parents failed those kids which I know is something you can't say. Even harder to fix."

I've highlighted the five key words: "the parents failed those kids."

Protests ensued, blasting Kempczinski for blaming the parents. In an open letter, some McDonald's workers and community groups called Kempczinski's message: "ignorant, racist and unacceptable."

The mayor's spokesperson commented: "Victim shaming has no place in this conversation."

Rank-and-file workers were upset, too. As one McDonald's employee told Chicago’s WBEZ:

"He doesn't know the circumstances of these parents. [He's] putting the blame on parents for the violence in the streets. He can't relate because he is wealthy, and we are not, and he doesn't understand our struggle."

After the backlash, Kempczinski wrote to all McDonald's corporate employees in the U.S. this week explain the genesis of his text to Lightfood, and maybe to apologize -- although he never actually used that word.

I've had the chance to review what he wrote, and if I can summarize, it really comes down to a simple proposition: a violation of all of the most basic rules of how emotionally intelligent people think through important conversations.

Let's break it all down, using Kempczinski's "quasi-mea-culpa" as a guide:

Rule #1: Imagine yourself in your audience's position.

Emotionally intelligent people realize that almost nobody else sees the world from exactly their perspective.

Sometimes that's fine, but other times -- say, for example, when you're the $10 million-a-year CEO of one of the world's largest corporations -- it's up to you to make the extra effort.

Kempczinski admits right upfront that he didn't do that here:

"I was thinking through my lens as a parent and reacted viscerally. But I have not walked in the shoes of Adam's or Jaslyn's family and so many others who are facing a very different reality."

I'd take that a step further: He wasn't just not thinking about the parents--obviously that was crucial--but he also wasn't thinking about how his words would be perceived by the mayor, and McDonald's employees, and the city writ large.

A little bit of empathy goes a long way, but apparently a lack of empathy can go even further.

Rule #2: Stop and think before you act.

There might be some times when acting quickly, without thinking, is better than deliberative action.

But those times are the exception to the rule. And, texting to the mayor of the third-largest U.S. city (knowing, as the CEO of McDonald's certainly should, that there is no expectation of privacy in that kind of communication), is definitely not an exception to that rule.

Kempczinski knows it was a mistake not to take the time to think through what he was saying.

"Not taking the time to think about this from their viewpoint was wrong," he wrote, "and lacked the empathy and compassion I feel for these families."

Lesson learned -- albeit one I'll bet he wishes he'd learned earlier.

Rule #3: Show strategic kindness.

Kindness and empathy are side-products of emotional intelligence, not the goals. Instead, emotional intelligence is about being aware of emotions and leveraging them to make it more likely that you can achieve your goals.

That said, kindness can be a goal in and of itself--and demonstrating kindness can lead people to be more receptive to what you have to say.

With that backdrop, it was very unkind, just days after the horrific shooting deaths of a 13-year-old and a 7-year-old, to suggest that the parents were to blame.

This would be true even if Kempczinski somehow thought he could back up his claim. (I'm not saying I think he could; I'm just surmising that he probably thought he could, if he thought to say it.)

Regardless, human decency practically begs that you hold your fire in that situation. Much better to remain silent, than to play armchair detective in a way that says those who likely grieve the most should shoulder the burden.

Live and learn

There is an irony in writing about this situation in that I feel compelled to try to write with emotional intelligence: to pause, to put myself in the shoes of others, to write with kindness where I can.

And there's a temptation to express sympathy for Kempczinski: Who among us hasn't said something he or she later regretted, and even cringed to read?

The difference is that Kempczinski isn't just writing for himself; he's writing as the CEO of one of the world's most iconic companies, who was paid more than $10 million last year (a low year, in fact, due to Covid), and who has much more responsibility than most of us have.

I don't know if he's sincere in describing the lessons he's learned, or if he truly wants to craft better messages, or if he cares a whit about leading with emotional intelligence.

Even if Kempczinski apparently hasn't read it, I think you'll find it useful. And maybe reading it will make it just a little bet less likely you'll have to write a "quasi-mea-cupla" someday like he did, too.

I'd take that a step further: He wasn't just not thinking about the parents--obviously that was crucial--but he also wasn't thinking about how his words would be perceived by the mayor, and McDonald's employees, and the city writ large.

A little bit of empathy goes a long way, but apparently a lack of empathy can go even further.

Thursday, November 4, 2021

A doctor spread COVID misinformation and renewed her license with a mouse click

For much of the pandemic, Dr. Lee Merritt has appeared on talk shows and in lecture halls to spread false information about COVID-19.

Among her claims: that the SARS-CoV2 virus is a genetically engineered bioweapon (the U.S. intelligence community says it's not). And that vaccination dramatically increases the risk of death from COVID (data show an enormous drop in risk for those who take the vaccine). The entire pandemic, she says in public lectures, is a vast global conspiracy to exert social control.

And yet, in October, she was able to renew her medical license in the state of Nebraska. Documents obtained through a public records request by NPR showed it took just a few clicks: 12 yes-or-no questions answered online allowed her to extend her license for another year.

Critics say that Merritt's renewal is another example of how the nation's state medical boards are failing to protect the public from a small minority of doctors spreading COVID falsehoods.

"State medical boards, for the main part, have been cozy clubs of people who feel their job is to protect the profession," says Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a group that tracks vaccine misinformation online.

In the past, that's meant a slow process that provided physicians every opportunity to defend themselves against a complaint, he claims. But in the current pandemic, Ahmed argues, medical boards need to move faster and with more force. "Speeches aren't enough, letters aren't enough, we need action now," he says.

A dangerous message

Few people have been more influential over the course of the pandemic than doctors. They have been at the front lines, battling COVID and facilitating the vaccine rollout. Public health officials also see doctors as a major tool in fighting misinformation. Officials encourage vaccine-hesitant individuals to talk to their physician, as a way of combatting the vortex of false claims and conspiracy theories online.

But a handful of doctors like Dr. Merritt have worked contrary to these efforts: spreading bad information about COVID-19. Their qualifications make their message especially dangerous, says Nick Sawyer, an emergency room doctor who headsNo License For Disinformation, a group seeking action against doctors who spread falsehoods.

"Physicians should be held to a higher standard because people are entrusting us with their lives," he says.

The licensing of physicians in the United States varies from state to state. Medical boards are typically set up under state law and populated with a mix of doctors, lawyers and citizens. The boards can receive complaints from any member of the public. They then investigate and carry out disciplinary action according to their own rules and the laws of the state.

License renewals are often automatic, and Sawyer says he wants that process to be as smooth as possible. But he is also frustrated by the lack of disciplinary action: "If you're a physician in good standing, then you should be able to continue your practice without having to jump through a bunch of hoops," he says. "But that is also assuming that the medical board is doing its job."

Spread of misinformation is not censured

So far, it appears that many physicians spreading bad information have escaped censure. In September, NPR looked at 16 doctors who have spread false claims about COVID, including Merritt. Records show that none have been disciplined, and all but one continue to hold an active medical license. And Dr. Merritt was not the only one who obtained a renewal.

Public records obtained by NPR show that Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, another prominent anti-vaccine physician who claims — among other things — that vaccines make people magnetic, renewed her license online. The Ohio Capitol Journal first reported Tenpenny's renewal in September.

Neither Dr. Merritt nor Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees its medical board, responded to NPR's request for comment. But Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, the president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, an umbrella group, says medical license renewals are designed to be simple for doctors.

"It's a procedural step that is usually automatic and not even deliberated upon by the board," he says. He says boards simply don't have the capacity to review many hundreds or thousands of renewals that come up each year, and that a failure to renew would be equivalent to a license suspension, which cannot be done without due process. But he also says the renewals do not prevent boards from taking action.

"A medical license that's automatically renewed does not mean that an investigation isn't ongoing, nor does it prevent a board from taking a disciplinary action against that licensee," he says.

In fact Chaudhry says a recent survey by the federation found that over half of the nation's medical boards have seen an increase in complaints about doctors disseminating false information about COVID-19. Among those who responded to the FSMB survey, he says 21% have already taken some kind of disciplinary action. Many others are now quietly investigating complaints, Chaudhry says. They just need more time to act.

In the meantime, Lee Merritt continues to travel the country, giving speeches filled with junk science.

Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.

Wednesday, November 3, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has now killed 5 million people around the world

Global deaths from COVID-19 have now surpassed 5 million, according to the data released Monday from Johns Hopkins University's coronavirus tracker.
The U.S. leads the world in the number of confirmed deaths from the virus with more than 745,800 people dead from COVID-19. Brazil (with more than 607,000 deaths) and India (with more than 450,000 deaths) follow the U.S. in the number of lives lost since the start of the pandemic.
Yet another tragic milestone of the pandemic comes just as the U.S. prepares to start vaccinating children between the ages of 5 and 11.
But in other parts of the world, health officials are seeing worrying signs of a coronavirus surge — just as some nations are relaxing measures to international travelers.
This official global tally only accounts for confirmed cases around the world, according to Amber D'Souza, professor of epidemiology at the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health, who spoke to National Geographic.
Prior to Johns Hopkins releasing the latest global data on Monday D'Souza told the outlet: "It's quite possible that the number of deaths is double what we see. But 5 million is such a staggering number on its own. No country has been able to escape it."
Europe and Southeast Asia report a surge in cases The World Health Organization recently reported a rise in cases in Europe during October.
As of Oct. 26, the European region experienced an 18% surge in new COVID-19 cases. Southeast Asia, a region experiencing a similar rise in new COVID cases, also reported a 13% increase in new COVID-19 deaths.
Globally, as of Oct. 26, the health organization reported more than 2.9 million cases and more than 49, 000 new deaths, a 4% and 5% increase respectively.
Last month, Russian officials registered the highest death toll in Europe: more than 235,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic. Due to skyrocketing infections from the delta strain, officials there launched a temporary lockdown in an attempt to defeat the virus.
But there is skepticism over whether the numbers being shared in Russia are actually the official count. Some believe the numbers may be higher.
On Friday, Reuters reported that Poland's total number of COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic passed 3 million. Daily cases are quickly gaining pace as the country is in the middle of the fourth wave of the virus.
In Singapore, where officials have decided to coexist with the coronavirus and cease lockdown measures, a jump in cases has been reported there, too.
More than 80% of Singapore's population has been immunized against COVID-19. Yet as of Oct. 30, cases jumped to well over 3,000 cases a day in about two months.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.

Monday, November 1, 2021

Pat Martino is dead, an American jazz guitarist and composer, a true legend

Martino was born Patrick Azara in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. After moving to New York City, he started playing professionally at the age of 15. He lived with Les Paul for a while and began to play in jazz clubs such as Smalls Paradise. He later moved into a suite at the President Hotel on 48th Street. He will play at Smalls for six months of the year, and then in the summer at the Harlem Club in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Martino played and recorded with Lloyd Price, Willis Jackson and Eric Klaus early in his career. He has also worked with jazz organists Charles Earland, Richard “Groove” Holmes, Jack McDuff, Don Patterson, Trudy Pitts, Jimmy Smith, Gene Ludwig and Joey DeFrancesco.

Martino continued to perform until 1980 when hemorrhagic arteriovenous malformations caused “near-fatal seizures.” This made him amnesia, and he has no memories or knowledge of his career or how to play the instruments that made him successful.

Martino said he was completely forgetful from the operation and learned to focus on the present rather than what may happen in the past or future. He was forced to learn to play guitar from scratch. This situation is essential to understand his career and his special way of thinking. Martino married Ayako Asahi Martino in Tokyo, Japan in 1995.

He was selected as the guitarist of the year in a 2004 Down Beat magazine reader vote. In 2006, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab re-released his album East! On Ultradisc UHR SACD. In 2017, he shot a series of educational videos called “A Study of Opposites and Its Performance on the Guitar”. 

A true American hero and a living legend until today, now is a complete legend forever.

Rest in Peace, Maestro!

Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Texas abortion law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's justices gave a skeptical hearing Monday to Texas and its strict abortion law, sounding as though they are ready to reverse course and allow abortion providers to sue and win a federal court order blocking its enforcement. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh, two of the conservatives who hold key votes, said the state appeared to have gone too far, first by adopting an unconstitutional limit on abortions and then by effectively preventing doctors and clinic owners from challenging it in court. Kavanaugh said Texas had exploited a "loophole" in the law to bar people from going to federal court — even when those people are targeted by an unconstitutional state law. He noted that in 1908, the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling said people or businesses who are targeted by an unconstitutional law could win relief from a federal judge by naming a state official who would enforce the law. But Texas steered around that decision by relying on private lawsuits against abortion doctors and clinics. In response, lawyers for Texas claimed the abortion doctors were free to defend themselves in state courts. But Barrett said that would not work either. She said the state law says a doctor could be sued by hundreds of people over a single abortion, yet state judges could rule on only one suit at a time. "You can't get a global relief" even if the abortion doctor wins in a state court, she said. "The statute can still be enforced against you." A Texas lawyer said state judges, not state officials, are enforcing the Texas abortion law. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Kavanaugh cited a landmark ruling on civil rights in which the high court struck down the use of racially restrictive covenants on deeds that prevented African Americans or Jews from buying house. Those deeds had been defended on the grounds they were private arrangements, not state laws. But as Kavanaugh noted, the high court in the case of Shelley vs. Kraemer in 1948 struck them down because state judges "enforced" those restrictions. He said the same principle should apply in this case. Based on their comments and questions during nearly three hours' argument, it appeared that six of the justices favored clearing the way for the federal courts to block enforcement of the Texas law. This was the third time the high court had considered the Texas law. The court was not focused on the constitutionality of abortion, but rather the procedural restrictions that have prevented abortion doctors and the Justice Department from challenging the Texas law in federal court. While the lawyers argued over procedure, the overriding question is whether the conservative court will stand in the way of a state's bid to stop abortions. So far, the answer has been no. The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, says it is illegal to perform an abortion after about six weeks of a pregnancy but gives the state no direct role in enforcing that ban. Instead, it authorizes private lawsuits in state courts against doctors or clinic owners who violate its provisions. On Sept. 1, four members of the high court, including Roberts, voted to block the Texas law before it took effect, but they were unable to win over at least one more conservative to form a majority. Two weeks ago, the justices weighed the issue again after the Justice Department entered the case, but they agreed only to hear arguments on the procedural questions. U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who was confirmed last week by the Senate, called the Texas law an "affront to the Constitution, as well as to the Supreme Court's role in protecting the rights of Americans. "Texas’s various procedural objections do not withstand scrutiny once S.B. 8 is recognized for what it is: a brazen nullification of this court’s precedents," she wrote in a brief filed Friday. "Texas is responsible for S.B. 8. And it is subject to this suit by the United States and an injunction by the federal courts. "Prelogar's argument rests on the idea that federal law is, as the Constitution states, the "supreme law of the land." Yet throughout its history, the Supreme Court has shielded states from being sued directly. States are said to have "sovereign immunity" unless Congress has acted to waive it. After the Civil War, however, the Reconstruction Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which authorized suits in federal court against any person who, acting "under color of" state law, deprives others of their rights protected by the Constitution. Typically, lawyers rely on this section of the 1871 act to sue state or local officials who are enforcing an unconstitutional law. But in this instance, the abortion rights advocates were not sure who to sue. They could not point to particular state officials or to the unknown private individuals who may sue an abortion doctor. As a fallback, they named state judges who might have to rule on a suit. But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has twice rejected efforts to block the Texas law. The first appeal heard Monday arose from a coalition of abortion providers who sued in July seeking to stop the Texas law. The second comes from the Justice Department, which sued in September, a week after the law took effect. The Biden administration's attorney acknowledged that the procedural law is not clearly on her side. 
"To be sure, no state has ever attacked the supremacy of federal law through this mechanism before," Prelogar wrote. "But the novelty of Texas’s unprecedented scheme does not render the federal courts powerless to redress the state’s ongoing violation of the Constitution." In response, lawyers for Texas say the legal battle should be fought first in state courts. If abortion doctors are sued for violating S.B. 8, they can defend themselves by asserting that the state law violates Roe vs. Wade and is thereby unconstitutional, Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton argued in his brief. "The Constitution does not guaranteed pre-enforcement review of state (or federal) laws in federal court. And there is nothing unprecedented about vindicating constitutional rights as a state-court defendant," he wrote. The two cases heard Monday are Whole Woman's Health vs. Jackson and United States vs. Texas. It is not clear whether the justices will rule quickly because the cases arrived as emergency appeals or will instead follow the usual procedure and spend weeks writing a decision accompanied by dissents.
Originally posted in Los Angeles Times by By David G. Savage

Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Transgender Rights are Human Rights

Arguments to support transgender rights often rely on “born that way” arguments, which assert that gender identity is innate, immutable, and unassociated with choice. These arguments are vulnerable to attack on several grounds, including on the basis of emerging scientific data. Stronger support for transgender rights arises from human rights arguments.

In March 2016, North Carolina enacted legislation requiring public school students to use the school bathroom consistent with their birth gender. The state law aimed to supersede a Charlotte, North Carolina, ordinance permitting students to use gender-segregated facilities aligned with their expressed gender, irrespective of the gender assigned them at birth. These dueling laws garnered considerable controversy, yet they form only one small chapter in the story of rights for transgender people today.

Proponents of the North Carolina “bathroom bill” claim that such laws prevent violence against women, arguing that “predatory” men, under the auspices of trans-friendly bathroom policies, will enter women’s bathrooms and harm girls and women. However, transpeople and supporters deny there is increased harm to other women from transwomen and note that there is instead a high level of violence against transmen and transwomen, even compared to the high level of violence against other members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. While rates of homicide generally have dropped across the US over the last decade, the same is not true of homicide rates for transwomen, and in particular for transwomen of color, who account for a percentage of homicides far out of proportion to their numbers in the transgender population.

The need to uphold transgender rights has never been more pressing or more important than today. Although laws regarding choice in bathroom facilities are symbolically important in establishing that transpeople deserve respect, transpeople suffer active discrimination in arguably more important domains, including employment, housing, and access to general and specialized health care. Compelling arguments and concerted action to support transgender rights are crucial. But which arguments offer the strongest and most broadly applicable support for transgender people in the current political climate?

Arguments for Recognition and Expanded Protection of Transpersons’ Rights

Many in the LGBT community rely on arguments that we refer to collectively as “born that way” arguments, namely, arguments for LGBT rights based on the idea that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate, immutable, or unassociated with choice. Two of the authors (TP and ES) have previously addressed the difficulties of using “born that way” arguments in relation to sexual orientation. We now extend that critique to arguments for transgender rights. We argue that “born that way” arguments rely on both shaky science and imperfect logic, and thus fail to provide a solid basis for transgender rights. We find more solid ground in arguments based on human rights.

Interpretations and Critiques of “Born that Way” Arguments

In The Mismeasure of Desire, one of us (ES) has addressed three interpretations of the “born that way” argument, and we briefly summarize those arguments in the context of gender identity.

Innate. We find several problems with the claim that gender identity is innate. First, the claim is essentially unprovable. Gender identity, as with any aspect of human identity, develops over time. An infant cannot be said to experience a fully formed identity of any kind—that sort of self-awareness requires advanced cognitive development, including a nuanced concept of gender that develops over years. Similarly, we are skeptical of the claim that gender identity—one’s perceived sense of belonging to a particular gender, independent of gender assigned at birth—is genetically determined. There is limited biological research supporting such a claim and no semblance of a scientific consensus on it. Gender identity and expression are complex, incorporating ideas of the self along with a vast array of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Contemporary biological evidence does not support the notion that gender identity results solely from a single gene or even from the presence of a specific number of X and Y chromosomes. Rather, gender identity emerges from multiple interactions among genes, the environment, and other factors, including personal feelings of authentic gender expression.

Immutable. Another interpretation of “born that way” connotes immutability. This concept is problematic because possibilities for change are not necessarily related to whether a factor is present at birth. Even factors that are primarily determined by genes can change over the life course: hair color and texture are genetically determined, but hair can be present or absent at birth, change color over time, revert from curly to straight or vice versa, and develop different patterns of baldness as a person ages. In contrast, immunity to a disease like measles is not inherited, but vaccination or disease exposure can result in a permanent change in one’s immunological profile. These arguments undermine the link between a trait’s being present at birth and its inalterability.

However, there are additional compelling reasons to avoid relying on immutability as a foundation for transgender rights. Although the scientific study of gender identity has yet to answer many important questions, it does suggest that gender identity is not immutable in everyone. Specifically, gender identity can change in prepubescent children. Indeed, the majority of younger children who experience gender dysphoria do not go on to become transgender adults. Given the evidence of the fluidity of gender identity over time in many children with gender uncertainty, arguments that assume immutability seem particularly unconvincing. True, transgender adults generally do persist in their gender identity. Nonetheless, gender as a concept is understood as more fluid and less rigid today than in the past. Research indicates that various aspects of sexuality, including both gender identity and sexual orientation, are more fluid than previously understood, especially in youth.

Rather than adhering to a rigid male/female binary, many scholars and activists describe gender as existing on a spectrum. Ideas about which attributes are socially appropriate for either male or female gender—or both or neither—have rapidly evolved over the last century. One hundred years ago, in some places, a woman could be arrested for wearing pants in public. Thirty years ago, women encountered more extreme barriers and fewer legal protections than they do today in many occupations, including soldier, pilot, or orthopedic surgeon, to name a few. Even today, men who stay home as full-time parents face questions about their “manliness.” Preserving transgender rights supports the ability of all people to align their gender expressions with a comfortable location for them on the gender spectrum. Insistence on the immutability of gender identity ignores its fluidity during development and the need to adapt to continually evolving standards of gendered behavior.

Not chosen. A third interpretation of “born that way” indicates lack of choice, and this aspect of LGBT identity is often referenced both regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Transgender people do not typically describe their gender identity as a matter of choice. As one blogger wrote, “nobody really wants to be a trans woman, i.e. nobody wakes up and goes whoa, maybe my life would be better if I transitioned, alienating most of my friends and my family, I wonder what’ll happen at work, I’d love to spend all my money on hormones and surgeries”. More typically, transpersons describe a growing realization of their gender identity over time. They might experience distress from social or other pressures to conform to a binary birth-assigned gender that does not match their authentic experience of gender identity. While gender identity is not subject to conscious choice, the overt expression of gender identity includes many choices, including dress, hair, naming, and all the other options that indicate one gender or another—including which public bathroom to use. Those opposed to transgender rights wish to deny transgender people (and everyone else) these choices. Opponents do not express concern about transpersons’ inner sense of identity but about outwardly expressed choices. To defend transgender rights is to defend the right to choose how one expresses gender and gender identity. Choice, far from being unimportant, is a critical aspect of transgender rights. In sum, “born that way” arguments on behalf of transgender rights are easily undermined on the basis of reasoning and scientific evidence.

Transgender Rights as Human Rights

We argue, in contrast, that transgender rights stem from human rights, i.e., those fundamental rights belonging to every person. Persons with either cisgender (in which assigned and experienced gender are the same) or transgender identities deserve to live and flourish in their communities—with freedom to learn, work, love, and play—and build lives connected with others at home, in the work place, and in public settings without fear for their safety and survival. These deeply personal decisions are and should be the prerogative of the individual and deserve the law’s protection. The United States protects religious freedom in the First Amendment, and religion is quintessentially a choice. We owe the same respect to all members of our communities. We don’t yet know if gender identity emerges from genes, hormones, environmental factors or, most likely, an intricate combination of all these factors and more. It is unlikely that people with a transgender identity simply choose their gender identity, any more than cisgender people do. However, it is crucial that associated choices about the expression of gender—affecting vital aspects of identity in school, the workplace, and the community—are supported by our laws and policies. Supporters of transgender rights should avoid arguments that are logically flawed and that fail to acknowledge current scientific evidence about gender identity. Our best arguments must rely on the concept of inalienable human rights, including the rights to live safely, freely, and without fear of discrimination.

Original from Tia Powell, MD, Sophia Shapiro, MD, and Ed Stein, JD, PhD