In recent years‚ as states grapple with tightening abortion restrictions‚ medical residents seeking comprehensive training in reproductive medicine have faced significant hurdles. However‚ California has emerged as a haven‚ providing a critical lifeline that helps overcome the training gap. California’s sanctuary status Amid the fallout from the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022‚ medical professionals like Bria Peacock from Georgia found relief in California. “I knew that the people — my people‚ my community back home — was going to be affected in a dramatic way‚ because they’re in the South and because they’re Black‚” Peacock explained.  Peacock’s decision to pursue an obstetrics and gynecology residency at the University of California-San Francisco originated from a profound dedication to addressing her community’s critical healthcare issues‚ particularly those related to abortion care. Bridging the training gap Recognizing the impact of abortion bans on medical education‚ California passed landmark legislation in September. This law allows out-of-state medical residents to get up to 90 days of in-person training‚ eliminating the previously required training license and permitting training at authorized medical school-affiliated organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Lisa Folberg‚ CEO of the California Academy of Family Physicians‚ emphasizes the importance of this bill stating: “By allowing physician residents to come to California‚ where there are more opportunities for abortion training‚ and by allowing them to be reimbursed for this work‚ we’re sending a message that abortion care is health care and an essential part of physician training.” Obstacles and fears for medical residents Abortion restrictions in 18 states have limited training opportunities for OB-GYN residents‚ leaving roughly 20 percent without access to critical abortion training according to the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. This raises concerns among students and residents as many are hesitant to seek full training due to concerns about anti-abortion groups’ animosity and regulatory limits. In the face of their state’s harsh abortion restrictions‚ an anonymous OB-GYN resident sheds light on the significant barriers to accessing critical abortion care training. This resident‚ who is genuinely committed to comprehensive medical education‚ faces a disappointing reality exacerbated by legal impediments. The resident‚ who chooses anonymity owing to the sensitive nature of the matter‚ emphasizes the enormous obstacles presented by governmental financial limits. This resident expresses genuine concerns about future litigation and explains how these constraints limit their professional options. The fear of legal implications from their program’s state-funded nature discourages residents from seeking or participating in abortion training outside of their state’s borders. This resident’s heartfelt lament demonstrates the stifling effect of legislative limits on medical education. The uncertainty and trepidation felt by aspiring physicians highlight the far-reaching repercussions of regulations that limit not only access to abortion treatment but also prevent the comprehensive training required to serve various healthcare needs adequately. The critical importance of abortion training Peacock highlights the importance of abortion training‚ even in instances that do not directly involve abortions‚ by reflecting on a critical scenario in which her experience at UCSF saved her life. During a severe postpartum hemorrhage‚ her team’s experience in executing a dilation and curettage‚ a standard surgery commonly used in terminating pregnancies‚ was critical in saving a patient’s life. Going forward with caution Despite numerous chances for abortion care training‚ the fear of harassment and violence against doctors remains a major worry. Medical professionals and residents exercise caution‚ scheduling training secretly to avoid unwanted attention or consequences. Janet Jacobson of Planned Parenthood supports the need for discretion‚ noting statistics showing increased harassment and threats against abortion doctors‚ even in places where abortions are legal. Personal stories and plans for the future The difficulties faced by medical residents seeking abortion training are profoundly felt. Jessica Mecklosky‚ a pediatric resident‚ describes her experience navigating Louisiana’s restrictive landscape and finding few options for abortion training. She obtained training in New York thanks to help from organizations such as Medical Students for Choice‚ highlighting the importance of external opportunities in bridging training gaps. Looking ahead‚ Mecklosky is split about her future‚ considering advocating for legislative reforms in reproductive health in Louisiana while also delivering abortion services in other states. Similarly‚ despite strict abortion regulations‚ Peacock is steadfast in her goal of returning to Georgia and continuing to provide important treatment to underserved areas. As California emerges as a ray of hope‚ providing vital training opportunities‚ medical residents such as Peacock and Mecklosky negotiate the difficult environment of abortion care‚ motivated by a shared desire to serve their communities.The post California is a crucial lifeline for medical residents seeking abortion training first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

After two decades of tireless effort‚ the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco now has stainless-steel netting designed to prevent suicides‚ a project championed by survivors and families devastated by tragedies. Kevin Hines‚ who miraculously survived a jump over the bridge at the age of 19‚ spearheaded this transforming initiative: “Had the net been there‚ I would have been stopped by the police and gotten the help I needed immediately.” Hines‚ now a suicide prevention champion‚ praised the tireless efforts of a small‚ determined group that never gave up on this important cause. Since its inauguration in 1937‚ approximately 2‚000 people have jumped from the renowned bridge. The project‚ which was approved more than a decade ago‚ has been repeatedly delayed. Installation of protective nets The 20-foot-wide stainless-steel mesh nets‚ located 20 feet beneath the bridge’s surface‚ are hidden from vehicles but visible to walkers. Dennis Mulligan‚ the Golden Gate Bridge’s general manager‚ underlined the barriers’ immediate impact on curbing leap attempts. Nets: an effective deterrent As the nets neared completion in 2023‚ the number of jumpers fell substantially from an annual average of 30 to 14‚ indicating their effectiveness in preventing suicides‚ while some occurrences happened in incomplete parts. Controversies and challenges While the stainless-steel wire nets discourage jumpers‚ they also endanger those who attempt them. Mulligan clarified‚ “It’s like jumping into a cheese grater. It will hurt.” Despite these concerns‚ training programs for rescue operations and attentive bridge patrols try to reduce these hazards. The advocacy for preventive measures‚ which began shortly after the bridge’s opening‚ faced opposition due to concerns about disrupting the iconic views. The plan for higher fences was met with criticism‚ ultimately leading to the recommendation of nets. Construction expenses rose from an initial estimate of $76 million to $224 million as a result of design revisions and structural problems. Legal disagreements between contractors and the bridge district exacerbated the project’s financial challenges. Debates on effectiveness While detractors dispute the large cost in discouraging determined individuals‚ defenders point to research that show that restricting access to lethal means reduces the risk of repeat attempts. The personal impact Families directly affected by these tragedies advocate for nets‚ claiming such barriers would have stopped their loved ones. Dayna Whitmer‚ who lost her son in 2007‚ emphasized the necessity of limiting access to avoid impulsive behavior. This article involves sensitive discussions about suicide. If you or someone you care about is struggling‚ please reach out to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988. Support and guidance are available to you.The post Golden Gate Bridge suicide prevention nets finally installed: a lifetime advocacy realized first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

If there’s a theologian known for upsetting categories—and unsettling listeners—it’s Stanley Hauerwas. He has been a top voice in virtue ethics‚ a critic of Reformed theology (to which I hold)‚ and the only theologian I’ve known to cuss in class. He can lob a fiery critique at Christian nationalism‚ only to tell off the theological left for where they’re not even Christian. Time named him “America’s best theologian” in 2001‚ eliciting his dry response that “best” isn’t a theological term he recognizes. We can all benefit from Hauerwas’s willingness to call out idols on the right‚ idols on the left‚ and—most dangerous of all—idols we hold in common. Ever noticed how quiet it gets in church when the pastor brings up money? Hauerwas takes the awkwardness up a level. It gets really uncomfortable when he launches into how materialism‚ desire for control‚ and failure to be distinct from the world together affect our theology of childbearing. Discussion of “having babies” is as awkward as it gets. How did Hauerwas influence my thinking about children? From Debating to . . . Dating I studied with Hauerwas as a single grad student‚ and his criticism of “romantically idealizing family” hit me personally. I was a culprit. A frustrated culprit. I’d stayed on my career path partly (OK‚ mostly) because marriage hadn’t materialized. At Duke‚ I was surrounded by male colleagues more prone to debate than date. Yet one such philosophy student caught my attention‚ and I determined not to let him off so easily. It gets really uncomfortable when Hauerwas launches into how our materialism‚ desire for control‚ and failure to be distinct from the world together affect our theology of childbearing. In a weeks-long debate with this “friend” from both Duke and church—was it only friendship?—Hauerwas’s views on marriage took center stage. No mere academic exercise‚ the debate was this: Could we each do as much‚ or more‚ for God’s kingdom through singleness? (My friend’s stance.) Or are certain goods best‚ even only‚ accomplished through marriage? (My stance.) We contested the place of personal goods like companionship and romance versus societal goods like raising the next generation in the faith. Though Stephen was older‚ decidedly single‚ and more concerned with productivity than romance‚ I managed to win that great debate-to-date‚ thanks in part to Hauerwas’s robustly unsentimental vision of marriage. Five children later‚ we’d both still cite Hauerwas as a challenging‚ disruptive‚ and needed perspective on the purpose of family. Act of Faith and Hope Consider Hauerwas’s opening question to students in his marriage course at Notre Dame. I started with the question‚ “What reason would you give for you or someone else wanting to have a child?” And I would get answers like‚ “Children are fun‚” or “Children are a hedge against loneliness.” Then I recommended getting a dog. They would come up with that one big answer that sounds good. “We want to have children in order to make the world a better place.” And by that‚ they think that they ought to have a perfect child. And you get into the notion that you can have a child only if you have everything set—finances in good shape‚ the house‚ and so on. . . . The crucial question for us as Christians is what kind of people we need to be to be capable of welcoming children into this world‚ some of whom may be born disabled and even die. . . . In a world of such terrible misery . . . having children is an extraordinary act of faith and hope. Where in either liberal or evangelical circles do you hear theologians speaking as Hauerwas does in his 2001 essay on the “radical hope” seen in bearing children? “What we are about as Christians is the having of children. That must come first‚ and then we must subject other aspects of our lives to that reality.” Hauerwas speaks uncomfortable but much-needed truths. Do we have such radical hope that we’re willing to “welcome the children the world does not want”? Hope Found Throughout the Bible The idea that we ought to be pro-children—whether in bearing‚ adopting‚ fostering‚ or serving—runs across all of Scripture. When Jesus showed unusual favor to women‚ children‚ and other underdogs of the ancient world‚ he was continuing God’s pattern throughout the Old Testament‚ where he repeatedly elevates candidates who were small in the eyes of the culture: widows‚ the second-born‚ the outsider‚ and the child. Scholars have attested‚ over and over‚ to the importance of multiplication and offspring in Scripture’s story. The motif of “seed” (children‚ descendants‚ offspring) runs from Genesis to Revelation. It’s integral at every major moment: creation‚ fall‚ Israel‚ Jesus‚ church‚ and new creation. God’s first commissioning of humanity to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28)— spreading his image around the earth—is finally fulfilled in the last pages. Revelation depicts God’s kingdom as a “city” comprised of “the nations” (Rev. 21)‚ “a great multitude that no one could number‚ from every nation‚ from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev. 7:9). Historically‚ the church has flourished when these motifs have fueled its imagination. The early church stood out from Roman culture in its embrace of women and children and its vibrantly pro-life stance that included adopting infants who were left to die. The church’s growth through underdogs surprised its detractors. And to give ourselves for the least of these‚ including children‚ continues to be a uniquely Christian hope. Hope Found Most Clearly in the Church Why is hope foundational for raising children? Precisely because investing in children involves sacrifice and delayed gratification—the kind of sacrifices that only make sense if we’re confident they’ll have far-reaching fruit. “Children lack the three things the world values most—power‚ wealth and influence‚” Hauerwas writes. “If we concern ourselves with people who are powerless‚ then children should obviously be at the top of our list.” Why is hope foundational for raising children? Precisely because investing in children involves sacrifice and delayed gratification. This characterizes the most devout believers. A report published at the National Institutes of Health notes‚ “Women for whom religion is important in daily life have higher fertility intentions.” They desire more children. This isn’t to say that having children is the only way Christians prioritize the vulnerable—nor to lay a corporate calling directly on each individual. As God’s redeemed humanity‚ the church is corporately to “be fruitful and multiply.” Individually‚ we may invest in kingdom growth in various ways. Notably‚ our Lord Jesus forever dignified the path of singleness‚ producing innumerable “offspring” through his saving and sanctifying work. But our affirmation of singleness shouldn’t encourage us to take the blessing of biological fertility out of the vocation of marriage. As Hauerwas says‚ “Marriage is a practice whose telos is children. . . . Those called to marriage are presumed to accept the call and responsibility to have and care for particular children in the name of the [church] community.” How Do Churches Cultivate This Hope? If having children remains a taboo topic in the church‚ I don’t see how we can escape being discipled by the world. Yet at times when the church has addressed procreation‚ we’ve given mandates that lack careful reflection on the theological complexities. I have more questions than answers here: What ethical issues should evangelicals consider related to the use of birth control? Since it’s a nearly ubiquitous practice‚ how do we help congregants form and articulate their theological stances? What vision‚ ethical paradigms‚ and wisdom should guide us? And if we’re not teaching well on this topic (as I contend)‚ where in the church’s life can we cultivate stronger discipleship? How‚ for instance‚ do married couples receive guidance on proper versus improper uses of reproductive technology? How do they evaluate the reasons and appropriate length of time to wait before trying to have children? May married couples rightly choose not to have children as a matter of preference? Or is childbearing essential to the purpose of marriage? Tim Keller once said the only way we’ll discern an idol like materialism is through deep community and transparency in mixed socioeconomic small groups. We need feedback from one another as a church body. Perhaps we need a similar feedback mechanism for this issue. When it comes to having children‚ Christians’ callings legitimately differ‚ and to navigate the ethical issues‚ we benefit from relationships where we’re deeply known‚ accountable‚ and able to receive individualized counsel. As churches seek to disciple their people in childbearing‚ we can thank Stanley Hauerwas for his provocative contributions to this necessary discussion. Having babies is a private and awkward topic for many of us—but it’s one we should recognize as a priority.

A basic tenet of any sort of media tradecraft‚ whether in print or on-screen‚ is that you should have some knowledge of the things of which you speak or write; a revolutionary concept. When that doesn’t happen‚ we get what we saw tonight- an assortment of drive-bys beclowning themselves over the meaning of a quote used by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as a callback to Ronald Reagan. The meaning of “pale pastels” within GOP political discourse is not something that is readily discoverable subsequent to a 10-second Google search. I get it. But the term does have historic significance. Ronald Reagan used the term multiple times‚ most notably during his unity speech at the 1976 GOP convention. “Bold‚ unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades‚” Reagan said when contrasting the GOP platform with that of the Democrats. That phrase has been broadly used by conservatives ever since- with the crystal-clear understanding that it comes from Reagan.  And yet‚ while live-posting (formerly live-tweeting) about tonight’s Republican primary debate on CNN‚ NBC reporter Ali Vitali took notice of DeSantis’ use of “pale pastels” when drawing distinctions between himself and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. And immediately‚ Vitali thought that DeSantis had committed a SEXISM‚ posting: A color scheme‚ “pale pastel” or otherwise‚ is not the way you attack a presidential candidate. None of the men who’ve been on these debate stages have had their clothes used to criticize their policies.      Vitali would further expand upon this point during NBC’s live coverage of the debate‚ saying (scroll down to 9:32): At a certain point‚ the “pale pastels” commentary could start to ring a little sexist. None of the male candidates are being taken to task for their bright red ties’ somehow being akin to their policy stances. OOF.  Her colleague Alec Hernández brought no knowledge to this discourse‚ either‚ indicating that the line is part of DeSantis’ stump speech but ultimately co-signing on Vitali’s accusations of sexism: DeSantis’ “pale pastels” reference is a line pulled from his stump speech. He often says that Republicans need to lead with “core convictions” and govern with “bold colors‚ not pale pastels.” That said‚ saying it out of context here standing next to Haley does come off differently. Ten minutes later‚ the AP’s Meg Kinnard would add to this nonsense by firing off her own item with its own overt accusation of sexism (scroll to 9:42): DeSantis has twice used the phrasing of “pale pastels” as a knock on Haley. She is the only woman in the race‚ and she is standing next to him on stage‚ clad in a pastel pink dress. DeSantis first used the reference to portray the former South Carolina governor as in favor of raising taxes. He said‚ “We need to fly a flag of bold colors. Carrying the banner putting the American people first — not the pale pastels of the warmed-over corporatism of people like Nikki Haley.” Minutes later‚ he said it again in reference to immigration‚ saying Haley is “bankrolled by people who want open borders” and adding‚ “You should work with corporate CEOs‚ Governor‚ that is pale pastels.” One symptom of the corruption of our journalistic institutions is the willful elevation of propaganda over facts obtained through knowledge of the subject matter you are writing about.  Exit question: How soon before the media try to wriggle out of it with a “DeSantis plagiarizes Reagan” news cycle?

"No harmony. No melody. No rhythm. No bullshit." The post Did Phill Niblock inspire The Velvet Underground? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Seattle is in King County‚ Washington‚ where Joe Biden got 75 percent of the vote in the 2020 election. King County had more than 1‚000 drug overdoses involving fentanyl in 2023. These two facts are almost certainly related‚ but which is the cause and which the effect? Or could it be that both (a) the tendency to vote for Democrats and (b) the addiction to dangerous drugs are caused by some unknown factor? Without a careful analysis of the available data to identify that unknown background factor‚ is it wrong to hazard a guess that the overdosing dopeheads and Democratic voters in King County are just plain stupid? READ MORE: The Destruction of the Family Was Not Inevitable Beyond sarcastic put-downs‚ it behooves those interested in public policy to take a look at what’s going on in places like Seattle‚ where Democrats dominate and “progressive” ideas therefore advance unhindered by any effective opposition. In the case of King County’s skyrocketing drug overdoses — which increased nearly 50 percent in just the past year — local officials have declared the problem “a public health crisis.” However‚ fentanyl is illegal‚ which means that the overdoses are also indicative of a crime problem‚ and progressives are against putting criminals in prison. After the 2020 George Floyd riots — caused‚ not coincidentally‚ by the death of a fentanyl user — the progressive outcry against “mass incarceration” was part of the general anti-law-enforcement rhetoric that incited “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests. It was claimed that black people were disproportionately imprisoned because of “systemic racism‚” and‚ it was further claimed‚ many of those inmates were guilty of nothing more than “non-violent drug offenses.” This rhetoric has now become the basis of national policy‚ e.g.‚ Biden’s recent commutation of the sentences of 11 criminals “serving disproportionately long sentences for non-violent drug offenses.” These commutations were part of “reforms that advance equal justice‚ address racial disparities‚ strengthen public safety‚ and enhance the wellbeing of all Americans‚” Biden declared. (READ MORE: Chauvin Did Not Murder George Floyd) As a matter of public policy‚ this approach only makes sense to those who know nothing about how criminals operate or law enforcement works. Habitual felons are not specialists; that is to say‚ the person trafficking in illegal drugs is also likely to be engaged in other criminal behavior. Pimps and thieves are often involved in the drug trade‚ to say nothing of the gangbangers who shoot each other in disputes over urban “turf.” Once upon a time in America‚ cops and prosecutors knew how to deal with such activity‚ a get-tough approach that included what we may call the Al Capone principle of law enforcement. Everybody knows that Al Capone and his gang were guilty of innumerable murders and other serious crimes‚ but Capone didn’t go to prison for those crimes. Instead‚ he went to prison for federal tax evasion. The principle expressed by this prosecution was simple — once you identify the habitual perpetrators of crime‚ it doesn’t really matter what charge sends them to prison. What matters is getting the bad guys off the street. For decades‚ intellectuals and activists told us that the “War on Drugs” was misguided and ineffective. However‚ if recent experience has shown us anything‚ it’s that you can’t reduce the drug problem by legalizing hitherto outlawed substances or refusing to enforce existing drug laws. Just take a look at the streets of Seattle‚ where addicts crowd the sidewalks in open-air drug markets. Is it a coincidence that Washington state was the first to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in 2012 and that now‚ more than a decade later‚ dopeheads are dying at record rates on the streets of Seattle? The criminals who were previously trafficking in marijuana didn’t decide to stop dealing drugs once marijuana was legalized. Drug dealers aren’t specialists‚ after all‚ and even with legalization‚ black-market marijuana sales continue‚ outside the taxed and regulated state-licensed cannabis shops. The same criminal who sells you weed will also be happy to supply you with fentanyl‚ cocaine‚ methamphetamine‚ or MDMA. The cause-and-effect questions about the correlations between (a) voting for Democrats and (b) disastrous outcomes like the drug problem in Seattle are matters of national consequence. The progressive policy agenda that tolerates — nay‚ that enables — the squalid scenes on the streets of Seattle and other Democrat-run cities is far-reaching in its ambitions. Even while urban “blue zones” turn into crime-ridden hellholes‚ the people responsible for these disasters lecture us about their plans to “save democracy” and‚ indeed‚ to “save the planet.” (RELATED: A Trashy Speech by a Trashy President: Biden Takes on Valley Forge) In one of the all-time great moments in the history of televised political debates‚ Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently confronted California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom with what instantly became known as the San Francisco “poop map”: “This is a map of San Francisco. There’s a lot of plots on that. You may be asking‚ what is that plotting? Well‚ this is an app where they plot the human feces that are found on the streets of San Francisco‚” DeSantis said‚ holding up the geographic depiction of the city smeared in shades of brown. Democrats don’t seem to mind if the streets of their cities are littered with discarded hypodermic needles and other detritus. They have more important priorities‚ like making sure restaurants don’t provide plastic straws to their customers. This is not a joke. In 2018‚ Seattle became “the first major U.S. city to ban single-use plastic straws and utensils in food service.” Think about that for a minute. Police in Seattle are patrolling restaurants to enforce the city’s plastic utensil ban‚ even while the city’s “progressive” policies require cops to ignore the junkies shooting up on the sidewalks. Peddlers of fentanyl go about their deadly business unmolested‚ but a restaurant owner could go to prison for giving his customer a plastic straw. How many exclamation marks do you want me to put after a sentence like that? It is difficult to express in words how crazy Democrats have become. What can explain this madness? Thomas Sowell once outlined it as The Vision of the Anointed — the belief that what matters in public policy is not practical consequences but rather the expression of good intentions. This vision turns politics into a narcissistic competition in which support for “progressive” ideas is considered symbolic of one’s moral and intellectual superiority‚ without regard for the efficacy of the resulting policies. Even when progressive policies produce disaster — e.g.‚ the squalor in cities like Seattle — the people who vote for such policies still cling to the vision that tells them they are more enlightened and caring than their opponents and critics who point out the failures of their policies. It would be bad enough if these failures were merely local in their impact. Watching once-prosperous cities turn into crime-plagued nightmares — whether in Seattle or Portland‚ Chicago or Baltimore — is unpleasant‚ but people who want to avoid local disasters perpetrated by advocates of “social justice” can simply move away from Democrat-controlled cities. What happens‚ however‚ when urban progressives gain control of entire states? This was the point DeSantis was making in his debate with Newsom‚ namely‚ that the former San Francisco mayor has presided over California’s startling decline since becoming governor. We may stipulate that Newsom himself is not entirely responsible for this decline‚ which was underway long before he became governor in 2019. Nevertheless‚ it cannot be denied that the progressive agenda is the basic cause of most problems in California‚ a state where a majority of voters have chosen Democrats in every presidential election since 1996. Democrats control the state legislature and every statewide office in California‚ where Joe Biden got 63 percent of the vote in 2020. Is anyone surprised to learn that (a) the state now has a record $68 billion budget deficit‚ and (b) it is now losing population as fed-up residents leave the state? Eventually‚ however‚ as the cancer of progressivism spreads‚ destroying cities and states‚ the health of the nation is threatened — which is‚ after all‚ why Joe Biden is in the White House. Go through the 2020 election results state-by-state and a pattern becomes clear. In every “swing” state that tilted to Biden‚ Trump would have won were it not for the overwhelming tsunami of Democratic votes in major cities. For example‚ in Georgia‚ where the official margin of victory was less than 12‚000 votes (0.23 percent of the approximately 5 million votes in the state)‚ Biden’s margin of victory in Fulton County (Atlanta) was more than 160‚000 votes. Which is to say‚ the Democrats in Atlanta won and the rest of Georgia lost. Something similar was true regarding Philadelphia versus the rest of Pennsylvania‚ Milwaukee versus the rest of Wisconsin‚ and so on. Democrat-controlled cities exercised a decisive influence in putting Biden in the White House‚ and‚ therefore‚ the preferences of urban progressives control the policy agenda of the administration. No matter how much Biden tries to portray himself as a blue-collar “regular guy” favoring commonsense policies‚ his election was the result of the Democratic Party’s urban dominance‚ and the agenda of the Biden administration owes much less to common sense than to the kind of ideologues who think it is good policy to legalize drugs‚ ban plastic straws‚ and turn loose violent felons in the name of “social justice.” What is really at stake in this year’s election is whether the American people will wake up and stop this insanity before it destroys our nation. READ MORE from Robert Stacy McCain: American Journalism Is Decadent and Depraved Staying Sane in the Era of Rainbow Flag Totalitarianism The post America’s ‘Social Justice’ Nightmares Have Only Intensified appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.