Rafaela Prifti – Dielli

OF POLITICS AND SCIENCE

April 7, 2021 by dgreca

by Rafaela Prifti/

The collision of medical science, political beliefs and public health policy – to the extent that one exists – is not a new topic. Politics and science often have been at odds. The confrontation resurfaced in a pronounced form in the pandemic era concerning various issues related to health and scientific data. The interplay between politics and science is a hotly debated issue and will likely get more heated in the US and around the world. It might lighten the mood to remember an anecdote about a member of Congress who told a scientist that was testifying at a hearing: “You got your science, I have mine!”

I write this because, in its essence, the recurring battle between politics and science may not be about either one of them but rather a mere manifestation of a deeply rooted human desire for power.

History of science is riddled with denial and opposition that vary in nature and outcome but mostly fall in one or more categories associated with ideological, political, religious or scientific domains. Discoveries from evolution to gravity and so on have been initially objected to and objected by fellow scientists and science community before being embraced by society. The rise of policy reports issued by ideologically based think tanks and more scientific advancement coming on the horizon are bound to raise political questions with severe social implications. I asked Sulejman Rushiti, University Lecturer at State University of Tetova and former Minister of Education, Northern Republic of Macedonia, to explain how the public narrative of the issue takes shape. “In general, politics is regarded as sinister whereas science as inherently virtuous, therefore politicians are often viewed as malicious in contrast with a benign nature of scientists. Yet history offers plenty of exemptions in both categories,” he said. In his view, in the past as in the present, certain conditions meet at one point to fuel an extreme kind of polarization. “The Middle Ages is the best illustration of state and church opposition towards science. Fast forward to the present, when scientific advancement and political ambition clash in societies that have seen the rise of troubled personalities and inept individuals.” Mr. Rushiti argued that the politicization of science, particularly medical, has been particularly present in times of war. “One example is the notorious case of the Nazi doctors who performed horrible medical experiments violating ethics and human rights in the name of science and its advancement. They went a step further in justifying these atrocities based on some cultural constructs and man-made beliefs about race and social systems.” The convergence comes to surface once it is realized that the pursuit of knowledge in turn provides power. In politics, the love of power is a very strong motive. One of the best analysis of power as “the singular most powerful motive among human desires” is Bertrand Russell’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1950. A British philosopher, mathematician, social critic, and political activist, Russell is considered to be one of the founders of analytic philosophy and one of the most important logicians in the 20th century. “Economic facts, population statistics, constitutional organization, and so on, are set forth minutely. If politics is to become scientific, and if the event is not to be constantly surprising, it is imperative that our political thinking should examine the springs of human action. What is the influence of hunger upon slogans? If one man offers you democracy and another offers you a bag of grain, at what stage of starvation will you prefer the grain to the vote?” asks Russell before setting out to give a presentation that should be, in my opinion, a recommended reading in school curricula.

Bertrand Russell argues that all human activity is prompted by desire. He decries the theory advanced by moralists purporting that it is possible to resist desire in the name of duty and principle. He does not deny that man actions stem from a sense of duty yet he looks further into it. His main theses is that “If you wish to know what men will do, you must know not only, or principally, their material circumstances, but rather the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.”

To look at the comparison between scientists and politicians, Mr. Rushiti opined that “they are driven by their ambition, and capabilities, just as they are conditioned by their personal upbringing and education, yet they may rise above them.” Since he is a prolific theater director, he offered a literature reference that is both recognizable and influential. “Lets take the Faust legend as an example of the scientist driven by political ambitions who cuts a deal with Mephisto to drive away the passions of personal pleasures. Mephisto is the metaphor for a social system, patterns of behavior and collective norms that cultivate personal drive and individual success. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, is the case of a statesman with a mind of a scientist.”

Powered by a strong motive and shaped by their own capacities, strengths and shortcomings, scientists and politicians are led to actions which may be useful or pernicious. “In a manner of speaking,” Mr. Rushiti argued, “a politician and a scientist carry out experiments that have a direct impact on our lives or quality of life. So it is important to adhere to an ethical society based on accepted humane values as a premise for individuals that believe in something bigger than themselves. In the flip side, history provides plenty of examples of personalities whose mission has been to restrict freedom and object science.”

Across the world, the response of countries and leaders to the pandemic offered more evidence of the troubling relationship between politics and science. The controversies surrounding each one are likely to increase as pursuits in either field are fueled by powerful motives and actors. A reformer or a despot may be led to actions motivated by power, yet the nature of their actions depends upon the social system, their abilities and ethics.

DO YOU HAVE TIME?

March 16, 2021 by dgreca

by Rafaela Prifti/*

Most agree that we have asked ourselves or someone the question What day is today? much more often in the course of the bleakness of the yearlong pandemic. In many ways, the specifications of time mattered less whereas time, perceived as moments shared with loved ones and on earth, mattered much more.

In its definition as a social construct, time is both complex and simple relative to human activity and purpose. As the saying goes, we cannot give ourselves more time but we can make the relationship with the clock more meaningful. Keeping and losing time might sound arbitrary because it is. One example that most of us are still adjusting to is the existence of Daylight Saving Time. In the early hours of Sunday morning, clocks “sprung forward” due to an over half a century legislation designed to give us one more hour of sunlight in the evening. If you are of a curious nature or a trivia driven person, you might know that since 2007 in the US the clock spring forward on the second Sunday of March, and they go back, the first Sunday of November. In many countries in Europe, Britain, France and Germany, the clocks change on the last Sunday in March, and the last Sunday in October. There is a law called the Uniform Time Act signed by American lawmakers in 1966, that decided that the right time of day for this shift was “2 o’clock antemeridian,” better known as 2 a.m.

The idea of passing legislation about time and the Daylight Saving Time does help create a false sense of control. Why does it exist? A popular myth blames the farmers for whom the daylight saving time not only is not helpful, it disrupts their schedule in serious ways. For the business community, gas stations, golf courses, moving an hour of sunlight from the early morning to the evening, drives the sales at the pumps or at the registers of the local convenience store.

The Backstory

There are records from the 18th century that credit Benjamin Franklin with the idea of reducing candle consumption at night and suggested to French to fire cannons at sunrise, after he realized he was wasting Parisian mornings in bed. The Industrial Revolution ushered the railway and with it the rising need to deliver passengers and freight on time. It meant that companies had to agree on whose time it was. Setting the time to the sun and by the people who ran the clocks in towns and cities created headaches and conflicting schedules. In the 1840s, British railroads adopted standard times to reduce confusion. American counterparts soon followed. Also scientists were urging a standardized system for marking time.

A coalition of businessmen and scientists introduced time zones. In 1883, U.S. and Canadian railroads adopted four (Eastern, Central, Mountain and Pacific) to streamline service. Records indicate that the event prompted fears of a kind of Y2K hysteria.

The time, seen as business, partnered with the industrial world and in the 1900s when it was understood that shifting the clocks could reap economic benefits. In 1916, under the pressures of World War I, Germany enacted the policy in an effort to cut energy costs and boost production. And several Western nations followed suit shortly after. In the United States, the federal government took oversight of time zones in 1918. And in March of that year, the country lost its first hour of sleep.

The daylight saving time started as a World War I energy- and cost-savings measure — with the added value of giving people more daylight hours to go shopping which grew into a myth about helping farmers. Fifty years later, Arizona opted not to observe Daylight Savings, with the exception of the Navajo Nation. As the locals would say “in Arizona, we don’t engage in such silliness” because they don’t participate in the Daylight Savings Time. Nor does Hawaii. Several U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands also do not apply daylight saving time. China, India and Russia do not use daylight saving time.

What Is the Point? Is it Really About Energy Costs?

The much talked about intent of the policy enacted by lawmakers is not fully supported by data. We have heard one of the oldest arguments that daylight saving time saves energy costs. Yet, there are conflicting studies on the topic. A 2008 report issued by the Department of Energy found that extended daylight saving time saved about 0.5 percent in total electricity use per day. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the shift in daylight saving time, “contrary to the policy’s intent,” increased residential electricity demand by about 1 percent, raising electricity bills and increasing pollution emissions. Among the most fervent supporters of the policy are the business advocates who argue it helps drive the economy. Nowadays, various special interests of pro-daylight-saving-time include golf course owners and candy manufacturers related to Thanksgiving. Making the case that a permanent schedule is more beneficial to our sleep habits and overall impact on health, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine called for the abolition of daylight saving time. The 2020 statement by the Academy said that by disrupting the body’s natural clock, the shift could cause an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular events, and could lead to more traffic accidents. There is a counter argument about public safety as crimes of opportunity increase after hours.

Time Matters

“Daylight saving” time is relatively new and not even that popular. You may even be in the group that believes that the reason we probably resist switching back and forth is the simple fact that it makes us feel in control of the one thing we absolutely cannot dictate: time. Yes, the ‘extra hour’ is a mental trick that requires some practice. Now you may be facing a choice of picking either daylight saving or standard time and stick to it.

Fifteen states have passed some sort of legislation to make daylight saving time the permanent time in their state. The European Union and several U.S. states, including California, Florida and Ohio, are either considering dropping the shift or taking steps to do so. A group of senators of both parties have introduced a bill to make daylight time permanent year-round. Passing a full year of a pandemic has revealed that it is not the clock that matters, not even the time on it when it comes to maximizing the year-round hours of light available.

*Correction: In the early hours of Sunday morning, clocks “sprung forward” due to an over a century legislation designed to give us one more hour of sunlight in the evening.

Contenders of the City Mayoral Race and the Community

March 12, 2021 by dgreca

by Rafaela Prifti/

Changes that have occurred point towards potential shifts in the landscape with major implications for elected offices in the city government in 2021 ….

In late February Council member Mark Gjonaj announced that he will not seek re-election this year. The first-term Councilman was elected in 2018 for his seat representing the 13^th Council District in the Bronx. In a two-page statement, Mr. Gjonaj cited centrist ideology and political climate as reasons for his decision not to seek re-election. “I sought public service to give back to a country, state and city that gave me and my family so much…The current political climate is not favorable to a centrist ideology that my constituency, community and I embrace,” Mr. Gjonaj wrote in a letter mailed to his constituents. Prior to his 2018 election in the New York City Council, Mark Gjonaj, served in the state Assembly. Since then, there have been reports of investigations on Gjonaj involving financial issues and campaign contributions. In his letter to constituents, the Albanian-American politician claimed that he was the victim of “ethnic smears” stating that public service should never be about identity politics which divides [sic] us.

In the meantime, the field of contenders in the mayoral race is brimming with candidates ranging from career elected officials to newcomers. Some 40 candidates have registered to run for the city’s top job to succeed Mayor Bill de Blasio. A primary winner will be decided on June 22^nd. The Democrat primary winner is generally considered the favorite in the general election.

There is an avalanche of information via virtual layouts and platforms forums that allows you to get to know each candidate vying to be the next mayor. The Albanian community is keen to be informed about the issues that matter to them going forward. To help, here is a compiled short list of the current leading candidates in no particular order that focuses on experience, name recognition, active campaigning and fundraising.

Eric Adams

The Brooklyn Borough President is considered one of the front runners. He has offered up his blue-collar background as one of his strengths: a native New Yorker who grew up in poverty and became a victim of police brutality, he joined the NYPD and worked his way up to becoming a captain. He has held up his life story as testament to why he is uniquely qualified to tackle rising crime rates and systemic racism in the police force. Addressing government inefficiencies has been another theme of his campaign. According to campaign filings, Adams is one of the top fundraisers with $8.6 million. He has been criticized for his willingness to take money from real estate developers. Stringer also initially welcomed money from real estate developers but has since reversed course. He lives in Bed-Stuy. After being diagnosed with diabetes in 2016, Adams switched to a plant-based diet and fitness regime that led him to manage his health condition without medication.

Shaun Donovan

Served as city’s housing commissioner under Michael Bloomberg before being tapped to serve as President Obama’s Housing Secretary and budget director. A former architect, Donavan has tried to set himself apart by being among the first to issue concrete policy proposals. He has proposed building a city of “15 minute neighborhoods,” in which residents live within a short walk of all their essential needs, such as a school, grocery, subway and park. He has released an economic recovery plan that includes a promise to bring back half a million jobs by the end of his four years. Donovan has raised $1.6 million, but did not qualify for matching funds. Donovan lives in Boerum Hill. He and his wife have two sons.

Kathryn Garcia

The city’s sanitation commissioner under Mayor de Blasio, Garcia has billed herself as a “go-to crisis manager” who has impacted the lives of every New Yorker—through trash pickups and the snow plowing of streets. She rolled out a platform that emphasizes battling climate change as well as quality of life issues. Garcia does not favor defunding NYPD but she wants to reform the culture of the agency. On the racial justice issue, she has brought up her diverse family: she was adopted and two of her siblings, who were also adopted, are both Black. As part of her recovery plan, she has also proposed building universal broadband and giving free childcare for families making under $70,000 a year. She lives in Park Slope. She was married to Jerry Garcia but they have since divorced. They have two children.

Scott Stringer

The current City Comptroller has frequently used his platform to criticize Mayor de Blasio. Since entering the race in September, Stringer has racked up more than $8 million in fundraising. Although an establishment candidate, Stringer has also positioned himself as a progressive. He began his campaign flanked by three state Senators who are young progressive Democrats that he supported in their run. He has called de Blasio’s policy strategy a “disaster” and said he would hold the NYPD to a higher standard of accountability in addition to cutting its budget by $1.1 billion over four years. As comptroller, Stringer has issued a slew of reports on issues ranging from homelessness, affordable housing and the pandemic.

Mr. Stringer holds the distinction of being a dedicated supporter of the Albanian community. In 2009, he joined organizing efforts with leaders of Sons and Daughter of Albania in America, The Bronx Borough President Diaz and community representatives to honor Mother Teresa in naming a block of Lydig Avenue between Holland Avenue and Wallace Avenue as “Mother Teresa Way”. Over the years and other events, he has celebrated Albanian history and culture while honoring the humanitarian legacy of this Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Ray McGuire

The most prominent Black executive on Wall Street, who has served as a vice-chairman at Citibank. A favorite of the business community, he has made the economic recovery the core of his campaign. Specifically, he has said that he wants to create “the biggest job program in New York City history” with a goal of half a million new jobs. But he has also stressed his commitment to social and racial justice, often referencing his upbringing by a single mother and his encounters with racism throughout his education and career. His fundraising prowess makes him a highly competitive contender. In 2018, McGuire was said to be on a short list of candidates to head the New York Federal Reserve. He is considered one of Wall Street’s top deal makers, and has advised major corporate mergers, including the Time Warner Inc. sale to AT&T Inc. for more than $80 billion.

Andrew Yang

The former tech entrepreneur joined the race following a longer-than-expected presidential run. Having amassed nearly 2 million Twitter followers known as the “Yang Gang,” he enjoys high name recognition and has presented himself as a forward-thinking “numbers guy” who can raise New York City out of the crisis with new ideas. His major policy platform has been proposing a cash payment to half a million of the poorest New Yorkers, a scaled-down version of his so-called “universal basic income” plan that he pitched on the national level. Yang’s campaign has promised to roll out detailed plans to address criticism that he has not presented much in terms of policies. He is expected to be a front runner who had 21,000 donors from New York City during his presidential run. Yang has been open about raising a son with autism. In addition, his wife last came forward as a survivor of sexual assault. Yang’s most successful entrepreneurial venture was a test-prep company for people taking the entrance exams for business school and law school.

Carlos Menchaca

Menchaca is a Brooklyn city Council member who most recently garnered attention for his role in doing away with the Industry City rezoning in Sunset Park. The developers promised tens of thousands of jobs, but Menchaca argued that the deal was going to displace residents and hasten gentrification. He is among the most left-leaning candidates running for mayor. One of his signature policy proposals is a guaranteed cash program for New Yorkers which he is planning to introduce into the City Council. He has also embraced investments that would usher in a municipal green new deal. He is the first Mexican-American elected to public office in New York City. Like Sutton, he would be the city’s first open gay mayor. Born and raised in El Paso, Texas, he moved to New York in 2004 after graduating college and interned for then-Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. He is an avid cyclist who routinely bikes from his home to City Hall. If elected Menchaca will be the city’s first “bike mayor”

Dianne Morales

A former nonprofit executive who has called for defunding the police and using the savings toward youth programs, parks and transportation, Morales is a proponent for permanently eliminating screenings as a first step toward desegregating the city’s school system. Ms. Morales has also proposed a guaranteed minimum income for poor New Yorkers financed through a tax on the wealthy without sacrificing other social benefits. She is seeking to become the city’s first Afro-Latina mayor. She lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant, where she was born and raised. Morales has graduate degrees from Harvard University and Columbia University. She frequently talks about being a single-mother to two children who are now over 18.

Loree Sutton

Former Head of New York City’s Department of Veterans’ Services under Mayor Bill de Blasio has a 35 year career in military and public service. A retired brigadier general, she earned a bronze star during the first gulf war. She is a moderate, who registered as Democrat in 2019 after having been a lifelong independent. Citing a lifelong experience in the armed forces, she has pitched herself as a non-polarizing leader who can bring together the private, philanthropic, and public sectors. She has argued that police need to build better relationships with the community, proposing to appoint a “public safety czar” to carry out the task. Sutton was the Army’s highest-ranking psychiatrist. She has made addressing the city’s mental health crisis one of her main campaign platforms. Sutton lives with her wife Laurie Leitch, a psychotherapist and consultant.

Maya Wiley

Former legal analyst for MSNBC and a former de Blasio administration official. She has been a vocal critic of her former boss, on his decision to run for president as skirting of his duties, his management of the NYPD during the Black Lives Matter protests, and the management of the pandemic. A former civil rights attorney, Wiley has vowed to reform policing in New York City by increasing accountability. Her first two detailed policy plans have been on reducing gun violence and evictions. One of her proposals calls for using federal funding toward establishing a citywide rent and tax relief program. Born in Syracuse and raised in Washington D.C., Wiley is vying to become the first female mayor of New York City. She would also be the first Black mayor since Mayor David Dinkins, who served one term from 1990 through 1993.

The compiled list may grow or shrink as campaigns progress yet the changes that have occurred point towards potential shifts in the landscape with major implications for elected offices in the city government in 2021.

Trump Appointee at Agency for Global Media Paid Millions To Investigate His Own Staff

March 11, 2021 by dgreca

U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack dismissed the heads of all its broadcasters when he took office in June.

Former U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO that oversees Voice of America, Michael Pack, contracted with a private law firm to investigate his own staff, a task usually done by government specialists. Mr. Pack, an appointee of former President Donald Trump was irate because he could not simply fire top executives who had warned him that some of his plans might be illegal. In August, Mr. Pack suspended those top executives. He immediately ordered up an investigation to determine what wrongdoing the executives might have committed.

Instead of turning to inspectors general or civil servants to investigate, Mr. Pack personally signed a no-bid contract to hire a high-profile law firm with strong Republican ties. The bill — paid by taxpayers — exceeded $1 million in just the first few months of the contract.

Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit that represents federal whistleblowers accusing Pack and some of his inner circle of breaking U.S. laws and regulations, shared an analysis of documents related to the contract between Mr. Pack and the law firm.

“The engagement constitutes gross mismanagement, gross waste of taxpayer dollars and abuse of authority,” David Seide of the Government Accountability Project, wrote in a letter to congressional committees with oversight of the USAGM. “The investigations produced nothing that could justify the kind of discipline Mr. Pack sought to impose on current USAGM employees he did not like — he wanted them fired (they have since been reinstated). Investigations of former employees also yielded nothing.”

Defined by scandal at Voice of America, CEO has resigned at Biden’s request. The new acting CEO Kelu Chao, a former senior Voice of America official, was appointed by President Biden on the day of his inauguration. She has brought back many of the executives that Pack suspended and investigated.

USAGM is the parent agency of Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other networks that cover news for people living in nations overseas. They reach an estimated combined audience of more than 360 million people each week, providing news for countries where a free press is either not financially viable or under assault from repressive regimes.

NPR Edited version

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

March 2, 2021 by dgreca

by Rafaela Prifti/

The start of Women’s History Month serves as a reminder of an ongoing campaign to elevate the voices of women. “To honor women across the globe, we must ensure that they are not only celebrated, but also supported,” says Nathalia Fernández, who is running for the office of the Bronx Borough President.

Fifty years ago, women’s history was not part of the K-12 curriculum or in the general public consciousness, according to records of the National Women’s History Alliance. To address this situation, the Education Task Force of the Sonoma County, California, Commission on the Status of Women initiated a “Women’s History Week” celebration in 1978.

The intention was to observe the week of March 8^th – International Women’s Day. Dozens of schools planned special programs for Women’s History Week and numerous community women participated in special presentations in classrooms throughout the country. At the end of the week a celebratory parade was held in downtown Santa Rosa, California.

The success of the Sonoma County’s Women’s History Week initiated similar celebrations in organizations, communities, and school districts. They all joined in agreement to support an effort to secure a “National Women’s History Week.”

The historical records reveal that in February 1980 President Carter issued the first Presidential Proclamation declaring the Week of March 8^th as National Women’s History Week.

The Presidential support prompted lobbying efforts on a national scale. “State Departments of Education encouraged celebrations of National Women’s History Week as an effective means to achieving equity goals within classrooms,” notes the website of National Women’s History Alliance. States like New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and others developed and distributed curriculum materials for all of their public schools. Encouraged by resolutions from governors, city councils, school boards, and the U.S. Congress, thousands of schools and communities were celebrating the event. Through the years, the growing efforts of hundreds of educational and women’s organizations was spearheaded by the National Women’s History Alliance. Thanks to increased lobbying, in 1987, Congress declared March as National Women’s History Month in perpetuity. A special Presidential Proclamation is issued every year which honors the extraordinary achievements of American women.