There are many reasons work requirements are terrible, but to give one example: You know what would help the opioid crisis? Giving people treatment while not requiring them to work. . &. . perhaps. .also childcare assistance? The downstream effects would be good for the economy
One of the biggest barriers to recovering from addiction is work. Once you are addicted to a substance, your overall functioning will be poorer than if you had never become addicted, but withdrawal from the substance will absolutely destroy the functioning you've maintained.
Everyone has a hard time recovering from any addiction, but there's a reason relative success correlates w/ socioeconomic status. richer people have more access to resources. They also have more access to TIME. They can take time off work. They can pay for childcare. Etc.
One of the biggest misconceptions of addiction is that people are taking drugs for pleasure or "just need a hit." That may be the case for casual, non-addicted users, but it is *not* the case for addicted people. Addicted people need the drug to function.
Recovery is not just about getting through a few days or weeks of physical withdrawal. Those days & weeks are, certainly, terrible & the side-effects can be so physically dangerous that medical supervision is required. But it doesn't end there. Addicted brains have become rewired
We hear addictions affect dopamine & immediately think "pleasure." It's not just that. Neurotransmitters underly several cognitive & physiological functions: memory, attention, executive function, stress reactions (anxiety), motor function, & much more.
So, when you recover from a serious addiction, your brain needs to adjust to a different level of processing. This can take a long time. Your memory may be impaired, your ability to process sensory stimuli may be impaired, & you are very likely to be unable to regulate emotions.
Now throw work requirements into this. And children. Even people who want to overcome addiction have trouble taking this next step b/c it is SO HARD to function--work & take care of your kids--without the substance your brain relies on to function.
So, yes, if we care about addiction, we need to fight against work requirements. We need to fight FOR universal healthcare & childcare support. When Manchin advocates for work requirements, he is hindering our response to the opioid crisis that has struck his state so hard.
Side note: I hope no one sees this & feels like recovery is too hard. You CAN do it. Recognizing what makes it hard & that it's not about "will-power" can be real tools in the path to recovery. Your brain CAN rewire. But you need empathy in that process.
Vaccines do stop infection & transmission in the vast majority of cases. This tweet is an example of how bad or manipulative descriptions of scientific data can lead to spurious arguments about "infectiousness of the unvaccinated," which I wrote about here alternet.org/2021/09/anti-v…
Conservative media bears a lot of responsibility here, but so does mainstream media. A lot of people walked away from media reports on breakthrough infections & viral loads w/ the impression that ALL vaccinated people were equally likely to spread COVID as unvaccinated people.
Now, to be clear: the CDC was justified in suggesting extreme caution in response to the viral load & transmissibility research, as well as other factors. However, the science does not suggest that all vaccinated people are equally likely to spread virus.
Ah, yes, it was the social spending of the Great Society that led to an anti-Democratic backlash in the mid-late 1960's. It was Medicare that made the wives of men terrified of walking in streets. Nothing else was involved.
This piece is a mess, even by George Will standards. There's the bad analysis of Civil rights, combined w/ negative connotations. And Will's warning about the dire consequences of social spending is based on a book that actually argued Dems were better than the GOP on the economy
I'm not sure how true this is, but I've heard Nixon liked "The New Majority" & such arguments influenced his thinking on economic policy, including not taking an immediate hammer to the welfare state. Of course they were also in line w/ the racist dog whistling of "law & order"
Given the Israeli state is oppressing Palestinians, the U.S. should absolutely pressure the state to change its behavior, as well as advocate for Palestinian freedom & autonomy more generally. Defunding the Iron Dome is 100% the wrong way to go about this.
-The Iron Dome is a defense mechanism
-Hamas fires rockets targeting Israeli civilians
-Hamas embeds its own operations in Palestinian civilian areas
-The Iron Dome is thus the major factor in de-escalation & preventing both Palestinian & Israeli civilian causalities.
The existence of the Dome is one way to argue against the Israeli state targeting Hamas in civilian areas. If Hamas is firing rockets at Israeli citizens, the situation will only escalate if the Israeli state no longer has a defense mechanism. That will harm civilians overall.
Pinker's public work has the prestige of being “data-based” & “from a Harvard scientist.” The problem? The data are cherry-picked or from right-wing sources. The analyses are massaged. All in the service of ideological conclusions. The line between academic & public is blurry.
This doesn't mean one must throw out Pinker's academic work, if one finds it sound. Just that, when we think about public intellectuals, we have to consider how academic prestige can render bad public work more credible than it should be. Especially when the link is "data-based"
Misrepresenting data—again, in the service of ideology—has significance when it affects our understanding of topics affecting vulnerable people, such as rape or hate crimes or violence in non-state/pre-colonial indigenous societies. All of which Pinker writes about quite poorly
We really need to be talking more about the Human Infrastructure bill in order to put it on the radar & build popular support around it. At this point, there are crickets on our end about how great it is & so moderate Democrats are not feeling any heat.
It's really incumbent on all of us to call or email our Democratic senators & representatives. For example, if you live in Minnesota, you can't put much heat on Manchin or Sinema, but inundating Klobuchar w/ support could have broader effects. Senators do talk to each other.
I'm also not a believer of "our tweets did it!" theories, but twitter can still be a tool. Getting Sinema trending for not supporting aspects of the bill could influence local press in Arizona to pick up the story more. We should be building a positive incentive structure.
Natural immunity appears to be robust in the short term, as does vaccine-induced immunity. Comparisons between these cases are of great scientific import. At this moment, tho, it is incorrect to argue the science is complete OR that natural immunity should influence public policy
An individualized approach to public health causes all kinds of issues. It’s logistically unfeasible at this scale & creates gaps. It also faciliates bad inferences, such as 1. People have reason to fear vaccines & 2. Perhaps it is preferable to become naturally immune
Note I am *not* saying, “ignore or deny the science on natural immunity.” Natural immunity & vaccine-induced immunity are both great. I am saying the incautious convo is causing more harm than benefit. Also: The differences between kinds of immunity are not “settled” science