# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic is one of the most enduring materials man has created. Nowadays, we all know that it can take hundreds of years for plastic to degrade, and research is showing that it is possible that it does not even fully degrade, but becomes what we call microplastic.

Microplastics are tiny particles of plastic that can be eaten by marine animals and end up in their bodies and tissues, entering the food chain and leading to disastrous consequences for the health of our planet and all its inhabitants.

Even if human beings are becoming more and more aware of the hazards this material poses to life, the presence of plastic in our ocean is continually increasing, and plastic pollution is still one of the main causes of marine species extinction, health problems for human beings and animals alike, and the destruction of our ecosystems.

In this article, we will look at ocean plastic pollution and lay out the data and statistics you need to understand the daunting issue we are facing. Most importantly, we will also look at what we can do as individuals and as part of our society to prevent plastic pollution and save our planet.

Let's start!

Plastic Pollution in the Ocean: Where does it come from?

It is clear that plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues we are currently facing, but how did it come to be? Moreover, where does all the plastic in the ocean come from?

Plastics produced from fossil fuels are just over a century old, but they revolutionized our life completely. It allowed the invention of many life-saving devices and the implementation of new technologies that changed the course of history.

However, the great advantages plastic offered led to a throwaway trend that made us discover plastic's dark side: the threat it poses to our environment and life.

The majority of plastic pollution in the ocean is caused by littering: we buy or use disposable plastic items (food wrappings, plastic bags, razors, bottles, etc.) and do not dispose of them properly, which cause them to end up in the waterways and eventually in the ocean.

Yet, not all-plastic waste in the ocean is an effect of littering: many plastics and microplastics are the product of improper manufacturing processes and about 20% of the ocean's plastic pollution comes from industrial fishing.

Plastic Pollution: Key Facts

Plastic waste makes up 80% of all marine pollution and around 8 to 10 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year.

Research states that, by 2050, plastic will likely outweigh all fish in the sea.

In the last ten years, we have produced more plastic products than in the previous century.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has stated that basically 100% of all plastics human beings have ever created are still in existence.

Plastic generally takes between 500-1000 years to degrade. Even then, it becomes microplastics, without fully degrading.

Currently, there are about 50-75 trillion pieces of plastic and microplastics in the ocean.

This plastic either breaks down into microplastic particles (see below), or floats around and ends up forming garbage patches.

Garbage Patches in the Ocean

Most of the plastic we find in the ocean comes from land: it flows downstream through rivers all the way to the sea. At first, it may stay in coastal waters, but it can soon be picked up by rotating ocean currents, called gyres, and transported literally anywhere in the world.

According to National Geographic, scientists found plastic coming from Russia, the United States, Europe, South America, Japan, and China on Henderson Island, an uninhabited isolated atoll halfway between Chile and New Zealand.

Usually, marine plastic debris groups up in what we call garbage patches, plastic accumulation areas, in the center of the ocean's gyres. The biggest is the Great Pacific garbage patch, located between Hawaii and California.

Consequences

Today, plastic production and use is still at its highest, but the data on recycling are not at all promising: only about 10% of the plastic we produce is currently being recycled. The rest is either incinerated, causing air pollution, or it ends up in our oceans and environment.

Harm to Wildlife

Plastic pollution in the ocean has a devastating impact on marine life and ecosystems. The most obvious one being the damage plastic items cause to animals when they come into contact with or ingest them, which include suffocation, entanglement, laceration, infections and internal injuries.

17% of the species affected by the presence of plastic in the ocean are on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species.

Yet, there are more problems related to plastic: floating plastic items can help transport invasive species, which leads to threats for marine ecosystems, biodiversity and the food web.

Harm to Human Beings

As we explained above, microplastics have now become part of the food chain and have been found everywhere: in drinking water, salt, beer and in the soil where we grow our vegetables.

Plastic materials are carcinogenic and can affect the body's endocrine system, causing developmental, neurological, reproductive and immune disorders. Another health hazard is given by toxic contaminants that often accumulate on plastic's surface, and are then transferred to humans through the consumption of seafood.

Climate Change

Plastic pollution and climate change are two sides of the same coin: plastic production, as it is created from fossil fuels, highly contributes to the climate crisis.

Moreover, as we already mentioned, when plastic waste is incinerated, it releases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, increasing emissions and worsening global warming.

Economic effects

According to research, the yearly economic costs of plastic in the ocean are estimated to be between $6-19bn USD. These costs are given by its impact on tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, and (governmental) cleanups.

Images of Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Here, we have decided to show you some recent images of plastic pollution in the ocean.

This will help you comprehend the magnitude of the threat that plastic pollution in the ocean poses to our planet and life, as we know it, and hopefully help you develop a deeper awareness of what is going on.

Why it is Vital to Prevent Plastic Pollution

Plastic pollution is undoubtedly an issue that requires worldwide cooperation. Its consequences affect the whole planet and its inhabitants: it threatens ocean health, the health of marine species, food safety and quality, human health, coastal tourism, and contributes to climate change.

Reducing the presence of plastic in our oceans will not only allow us to save marine species and ecosystems, but will improve our overall health and that of the environment in general, helping us fight climate change and working towards a more sustainable future.

How to Stop Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

It is quite hard to retrieve plastic from the ocean once it has entered it. New technologies allow us to catch larger marine debris, but small plastic items and microplastics are virtually impossible to reach, especially when they are deep in the ocean.

Therefore, many scientists and conservationists have declared that the best solution is to prevent plastic waste from entering rivers and seas in the first place.

This could be accomplished with the improvement of our waste management systems and the implementation of recycling. In addition, it is essential to reconsider the design and usage of disposable packaging, and the reduction in manufacturing of unnecessary single-use plastics.

What Can We Do

There are many ways to keep plastic out of the ocean! Here are some strategies you can adopt and share with your community:

Reduce plastic use
Think about all the plastic items you use in your daily life. Can you even count them all? Being more aware of the way you use plastic is a great starting point to reduce plastic waste.

We know, habits are hard to change, but even a small individual commitment can make a difference especially when talking about the single-use plastics we mentioned earlier which, according to data from the European Parliament, are responsible for 49% of all marine pollution.

Here are some new habits you can take inspiration from:

Swap plastic bags for reusable ones, made of cloth or fiber.

Reduce the use of disposable plastic cups, plates, cutlery and bottles. For example, bring your own reusable bottle to work and a reusable coffee cup for your morning take-away!)

Buy food and cleaning products in bulk to avoid useless plastic wrappings. Nowadays, there are plenty of options to choose from, and many supermarkets let you fill your own jars/bags.

Choose metal or glass food containers and storage options instead of plastic ones.

Avoid buying and using cosmetics that contain plastic microspheres or microbeads.

If you live by a sea or river, you can volunteer to pick up litter in your local community, thus remove plastics from the waterways and preventing them from getting to the ocean in the first place. There are many organizations you can join, or simply do it on the weekend with your friends and family. Every little helps!

Of course, it is essential to change our individual behaviors and habits, but unfortunately, this is not sufficient to prevent and stop ocean plastic pollution. It is also essential that you support legislation that aims at reducing the use and production of plastic, improve recycling facilities and better manage waste in general.

One of the main weapons we can use to stop ocean pollution is research. By deepening our knowledge of the effects of the issue, we can start implementing better policies for all.

There are many NGOs and non-profit that rely on donations to develop their projects and research for reducing and eliminating plastic from the ocean. Here are some examples:

Sylvia Earle, marine biologist, said: "It is the worst of times but it is the best of times because we still have a chance." So, let us make the best of this chance; we can all make choices to protect our planet, it is not too late!

References
https://www.itsafishthing.com/plastic-in-the-ocean/ https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html https://theoceancleanup.com/ https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/plastic-in-the-ocean https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/how-does-plastic-end-ocean https://www.oceanicsociety.org/resources/7-ways-to-reduce-ocean-plastic-pollution-today/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution in the ocean: data, facts, consequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic is one of the most enduring materials man has created. It can take hundreds of years for it to degrade. What are the consequences?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that burns in wildland vegetation, often in rural areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Civil conflict in Ethiopia (2018-present)

Part of the conflicts in the Horn of Africa

Territorial control as of March 2023[a]
(For a more detailed, up-to-date, interactive map, see here).
Pro-federal government troops

Anti-federal government rebels

Belligerents

Ethiopia

Eritrea[1][2]

Arms suppliers:
UAE[3][4]
Iran[4]
Turkey[4]
China[5]

UFEFCF (Nov. 2021-)[6][7]

Sudan[15][16]

Al-Qaeda

Commanders and leaders

Sahle-Work Zewde
Abiy Ahmed
Birhanu Jula
Abebaw Tadesse
Isaias Afwerki

Debretsion Gebremichael
Kumsa Diriba

Abdel Fattah al-Burhan

Ali Diyaar[21]
Osman Abu Abdi Rahman[22]

Units involved

Ethiopian National Defense Force
Ethiopian Federal Police
Eritrean Defence Forces

Tigray Defense Forces
Oromo Liberation Army[8][9]

SAF

Unknown

Casualties and losses

10,383+ killed[23]
8,000 captured[24][25]
2 MiG-23 lost[26][27]
2 Mi-35 lost[28][29][30]
1 C-130 lost[31]
1,555+ killed[32]

10,998+ killed[33]
2,000 captured[34]

90 servicemen killed[35]

800+ killed, 100 captured (Ethiopian claim)[36]

Hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced[37]

Other maps of territorial control in this war are presented by ^ MapEthiopia

The civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed administration is an episode of intrastate conflicts that began under Abiy Ahmed. Following the 2018 dissolution of the ethnic federalist, dominant party political coalition, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, there was an increase in tensions within the country, with newly resurgent regional and ethnically based factions carrying out armed attacks on military and civilians in multiple conflicts throughout Ethiopia.

These tensions further escalated when war broke out in the Tigray region between the federal government and the regional government in November 2020. The ENDF and Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) entered Tigray and took the capital of Mekelle. The Tigray Defense Forces retook control of most of Tigray in mid-2021 and formed an alliance with the OLA in late 2021. The alliance declared a coalition with seven smaller rebel groups, called the United Front of Ethiopian Federalist and Confederalist Forces.

Background

Emperor Menelik II, King of Shewa, who was of Amhara ancestry, through his multi-ethnic Neftenya aristocratic class seized territory in 1889 that are presently known as the Oromia, Sidama and Somali Regions. The League of Nations in 1935 reported that after the invasion of Menelik's forces into non-Abyssinian lands of Somalis, Harari, Oromo, Sidama, Shanqella etc., the inhabitants were enslaved and heavily taxed by the gebbar system[clarification needed ] leading to depopulation.

During the reign of Haile Selassie and the following Derg epoch (when Ethiopia was mostly ruled by Mengistu Haile Mariam), ethnic discrimination occurred against Afars, Tigrayans, Eritreans, Somalis and Oromos. The Amhara culture dominated throughout the eras of military and monarchic rule. As a result of neftenyas settling in the southern regions, other ethnic groups assimilated into the imperial culture by adopting the Amharic language, Orthodox Christianity, and other aristocratic cultural traits found in royal court culture. Both peasant Amhara culture and Ethiopian Empire royal court culture have heavily influenced each other; the imperial culture (which influenced and was influenced by Amhara culture) dominated throughout the eras of military and monarchic rule although Siegfried Pausewang concluded in 2005 that "the term Amhara relates in contemporary Ethiopia to two different and distinct social groups. The ethnic group of the Amhara, mostly a peasant population, is different from a mixed group of urban people coming from different ethnic background, who have adopted Amharic as a common language and identify themselves as Ethiopians". Both the Haile Selassie and the Derg government relocated numerous Amharas into southern Ethiopia where they served in government administration, courts, church and in schools, where Oromo texts were eliminated and replaced by Amharic.

Following downfall of the Derg by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) in 1991, Ethiopia entered a short transitional government until formal government was established in 1995. The EPRDF regime notable leader Meles Zenawi appointed as a prime minister shortly after. His rule implemented ethnic federalism to the country, leading to serious ethnic clashes and persecution against Amharas, Oromos, Somalis, and other ethnic groups people, while intensifying Tigrayan nationalism and Tigrayan ethnocratic hegemony.

Meles' government committed electoral fraud for over three consecutive cycles since 2000, and was considered an authoritarian regime by international observers. The EPRDF coalition leadership was ended after Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, and eventually dissolving the coalition in 2019, by merging most of its parties to multi-ethnic Prosperity Party. Notably, however, the Tigray People's Liberation Front (who had dominated the EPRDF coalition for 27 years) was not included.

2018-2020 clashes

Afar-Somali clashes

In 2014, the federal government under the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), redrew the boundary between the two regions of Afar Region and the Somali Region. As a result, the Afar Region gained three towns from the Somali Region which has tried to gain them back since. Border clashes in April 2021 killed around 100 civilians.

On 10-11 January 2019, 58 Qemant people were killed by the Fano militia. The ENDF failed to intervene to stop the massacre.

On 22 June 2019 elements of The Amhara Region's Peace and Security Bureau and allied militias loyal by Brigadier General Asaminew Tsige Chief of the Amhara Region security began a coup d'état. Starting with the targeted assassinations of political and military leaders including Se'are Mekonnen (Chief of the General Staff), Gizae Aberra (Aide-de-camp to the Chief of the General Staff), and Ambachew Mekonnen (Chief Administrator of the Amhara Region). The coup d'état ultimately failed with Asaminew Tsige being killed by police near Bahir Dar 36 hours after the start of the coup.

Benishangul-Gumuz is home to several different ethnicities including the Gumuz, Berta, Shinasha, Mao, Komo and Fadashi. The Gumuz have had tensions with agricultural Amhara, Oromos, Tigrayans and Agaw migrants, who in Metekel Zone constitute minority ethnic groups with some Amhara groups calling for Metekel to be incorporated into Amhara. Large scale land acquisitions by both local and foreign investors have also pushed the Gumuz off the land.

Gumuz are alleged to have formed militias such as Buadin and the Gumuz Liberation Front that have staged attacks against those seen as "settlers". In the Metekel massacre in December 2020, about 200 mostly Amharas, Oromos, and Shinashas were killed by a suspected Gumuz militia. An unidentified armed group took over the county of Sedal Woreda in the Kamashi Zone of the Benishangul-Gumuz Region in April 2021.

In March 2020, the leader of one of the groups called Fano, Solomon Atanaw, stated that the Fano would not disarm until Benishangul-Gumuz Region's Metekel Zone and the Tigray Region districts of Welkait and Raya are placed under the control of Amhara Region.

On 13 September 2018, clashes broke out in the town of Burayu between various ethnic groups including the Oromo, Amharas Dorzes, Gamos, Wolayitas, Gurages, and Silt'e. These clashes continued for three days leading to 55 people being killed and 670 people being injured.

On 2 November 2020, between 32 and 54 people were killed when an armed group of about 60 men suspected of being the OLA gathered 200 people in a schoolyard in the village of Gawa Qanqa before opening fire. The attacks were said to be targeted at Amhara people.

On 5 March 2021, 29 people were killed when a suspected OLA fighter attacked a church in the village of Abo. The OLA denied responsibility saying that the attack was carried out by an OLA splinter group led by Faqadaa Abdiisaa.

Oromia-Somali clashes

Clashes between the two largest regions, the Oromia region, which constitutes primarily those of the Oromo ethnic group, and Somali region, which primarily constitutes those of the Somali ethnic group, began in December 2016 following territorial disputes. Somalis are mostly pastoralists and Oromos tend to be farmers, as well as pastoralists. It has been difficult to demarcate clear borders between the states as pastoral communities tend to cross borders in search of pasture for their animals.

This has led to competition, such as for wells and grazing land, over the years, with tens of thousands of people being displaced in some conflicts. In 2004, a referendum to decide on the fate of more than 420 kebeles, the country's smallest administrative unit, gave 80% of them to Oromia, leading to Somali minorities fleeing those areas.

By 2018, hundreds of people were killed and 200,0000 fled their homes from the resulting conflict. The regional special police of both states, called the Liyu in the Somali region and the Liyu Hail of Oromia state, were both accused of committing atrocities.

With the succession of Abiy Ahmed to the position of Prime Minister friction began to build between the federal government and Somali regional governments due to Ahmed's reformist vision which clashed with Abdi Mohamed Omar (Abdi Illey) who had ruled over the region with an iron fist for the past 8 years. Despite attempts to negotiate a path forward, the tension between the two men would boil over, when in late July 2018, Abdi Illey ordered the Liyu police to enter into Dire Dawa, an area of Ethiopia outside of the Somali region's jurisdiction. The Liyu police, up to this point, had mainly been a counterinsurgency force created by the federal government in 2007 to help fight the Ogaden National Liberation Front and were commanded by then Somali regional security chief Abdi Mohammed Omar who would later become the region's president in 2010. Although he was no longer the region's security chief, the Liyu would still continue to report to him. In repose to the "illegal act," federal forces confronted the Liyu and entered Jijiga on August 4.

Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region

In the Guraferda woreda of the Bench Maji Zone in the SNNPR in October 2020, about 30 people were killed by an unidentified armed group. The victims were said to have been Amhara.

In 2018, clashes began between the Gedeo Zone in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region (SNNPR), made up of mostly Gedeo people, and the Guji Zone in the Oromia region, made up of mostly Guji Oromos. The clashes led to about 800,000 mostly ethnic Gedeos fleeing their homes. This was a higher number of people and over a shorter period of time than occurred at the height of the more publicized Rohingya crisis in Myanmar the year before. The government pressured the refugees to return to their homes even though they fear for their lives, often by denying refugees access to humanitarian aid.

The Segen Area Peoples' Zone, formerly a zone in the SNNPR, split in 2018 to form the Konso Zone, inhabited mostly by Konso people, as well as the Burji special woreda, Dirashe special woreda and Amaro special woreda and there has been intermittent violence since then. Violence in the latter half of 2020 attributed to Oromo and Konso communities killed dozens of civilians and displaced at least 90,000 people.

In the Wolayita Zone, at least 17 people were killed in August 2020 by security forces. This was following calls for making a separate region for the Welayta people in the same fashion as the Sidama region for the Sidama people.

2020-present

The Tigray Regional Government was led by the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), which formerly dominated the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front coalition. Hostilities between the central government and the TPLF escalated after the TPLF rejected the federal government's decision to postponing August 2020 elections to mid-2021 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing the government of violating the Ethiopian constitution.

The TPLF carried out its own regional elections, winning all contested seats in the region's parliament. In the months before November 2020, Mr. Abiy moved troops toward Tigray and sent military cargo planes into Eritrea. Behind closed doors, his advisers and military generals debated the merits of a conflict. Those who disagreed were fired, interrogated at gunpoint or forced to leave.

By 31 October, the TDF had claimed to have taken the strategically located city of Kombolcha, 380 kilometres from Addis Ababa, as well as the nearby city of Dessie. The government denied the claims, reporting that fighting was still going on in and around the two cities. The Ethiopian government further claimed that as the TDF entered Kombolcha, they massacred more than 100 youths. TPLF spokesperson Getachew Reda denied the claim.

After attacks on the Northern Command by armed forces loyal to the TPLF, which the TPLF called a pre-emptive strike, the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) launched an offensive, capturing Mekelle, the capital of Tigray in November 2020. The ENDF was assisted by forces from neighboring Eritrea.

On 23 November 2020, a reporter of AFP news agency visited the western Tigray town of Humera, and observed that the administration of the conquered parts of Western Tigray was taken over by officials from Amhara region. As of 1 March 2021, several geographical places had been renamed by the new authorities and many residents of Tigrayan ethnicity had been deported to Central Zone. Eyewitnesses report ongoing ethnic cleansing and settlements void of inhabitants.

The Humera massacres in 2020 that killed around 92 people of Tigrayan origin was attributed to Fano and ENDF. The Humera massacres in 2021 that killed Tigrayans were also attributed to Fano and possibly Eritrean soldiers. Fano are also accused of participating in the Mai Kadra massacre, which had both Amhara and Tigrayan victims, while Amnesty International, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, and the Ethiopian Human Rights Council attributed it to local Tigrayan youths.

Starting in March 2021 clashes erupted in the town of Ataye after Amhara special forces killed a person on the steps of the main mosque in the city. This started off a wave of inter ethnic clashes that spread throughout the Oromia Zone leading to the deaths of 303 people. On 16 April Clashes once again started after OLA fighters attacked the city of Ataye, The clashes continued for two days leading to the deaths of 281 people and the destruction of a quarter of Ataye.

By November 2021, fighting in the Tigray War had moved south of Tigray Region into Amhara Region, leading to a joint military campaign by the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) and the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) against federal forces, threatening Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.

The killings continued through 2021, with people being tortured, tied up and thrown in the Tekeze River. The Italian weekly magazine Panorama published a graphic video in which Amhara soldiers killed a group of 9 people in Humera in August 2021 and then put their bodies on fire. The video also shows torturing of one man by Amhara soldiers, then tying him up, preparing to throw him in the river.

On 5 November 2021, the Tigray Defense Forces and Oromo Liberation Army joined with other armed and opposition groups in declaring an alliance against the government known as the United Front of Ethiopian Federalist and Confederalist Forces. The alliance includes the Afar Revolutionary Democratic Unity Front, Agaw Democratic Movement, Benishangul People's Liberation Movement, Gambella Peoples Liberation Army, Global Kimant People Right and Justice Movement/Kimant Democratic Party, Sidama National Liberation Front and the Somali State Resistance. They further pledged to dismantle the government of Prime Minister Abiy, by force if necessary, and form a transitional government. But analysts state that most of the groups "do not have a strong fighting force," and some of the political groups "have even weaker political programs." thus making their impact unclear.

Between 30-31 August 2022, eyewitnesses said that militants from the Amhara Region (whom they claimed were Fano militias) massacred more than 60 people in Horo Guduru, Western Oromia, and displaced 20,000 more. On 6 September, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) confirmed this attack happened, though they declined to say whether the attackers were part of Fano.

The administrator of Kiramu district in the East Welega Zone, Fikadu Hunde, alleged that on 15 October 2022, Fano militias entered the district, killing 30 people and burning down over 50 houses. The EHRC learned of this information, but stated that there "was difficulty in verifying and obtaining accurate information due to the lack of network in the area," according to a statement they made to Addis Standard.

In November 2021, the Somali State Resistance allied with the Tigray People's Liberation Front and UFEFCF.

In July 2022, the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab launched an invasion from Somalia into Ethiopia's Somali Region; the invasion was the largest attack by al-Shabaab in Ethiopian territory to date.

Further reading

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethiopian civil conflict (2018-present) - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Civil conflict in Ethiopia (2018-present) Part of the conflicts in the Horn of Africa Territorial control as of March 2023[a] (For a more detailed, up-to-date, interactive map, see here). Pro-federal government troops Anti-federal government rebels Belligerents Ethiopia Eritrea [1] [2] Arms suppliers: UAE [3] [4] Iran [4] Turkey [4] China [5] UFEFCF (Nov.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China's authoritarian government under President Xi Jinping-who began an unprecedented third term in 2022-and the Chinese Communist Party systemically represses fundamental rights. Authorities have arbitrarily detained human rights defenders, tightened control over civil society, media, and the internet, and deployed invasive mass surveillance technology. The government imposes particularly heavy-handed control in Xinjiang and Tibet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A summary of wildfires in the U.S. and related weather and climate conditions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deforestation is the purposeful clearing of forested land. Throughout history and into modern times, forests have been razed to make space for agriculture and animal grazing, and to obtain wood for fuel, manufacturing, and construction.

Deforestation has greatly altered landscapes around the world. About 2,000 years ago, 80 percent of Western Europe was forested; today the figure is 34 percent. In North America, about half of the forests in the eastern part of the continent were cut down from the 1600s to the 1870s for timber and agriculture. China has lost great expanses of its forests over the past 4,000 years and now just over 20 percent of it is forested. Much of Earth's farmland was once forests.

Today, the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring in tropical rainforests, aided by extensive road construction into regions that were once almost inaccessible. Building or upgrading roads into forests makes them more accessible for exploitation. Slash-and-burn agriculture is a big contributor to deforestation in the tropics. With this agricultural method, farmers burn large swaths of forest, allowing the ash to fertilize the land for crops. The land is only fertile for a few years, however, after which the farmers move on to repeat the process elsewhere. Tropical forests are also cleared to make way for logging, cattle ranching, and oil palm and rubber tree plantations.

Deforestation can result in more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. That is because trees take in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis, and carbon is locked chemically in their wood. When trees are burned, this carbon returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. With fewer trees around to take in the carbon dioxide, this greenhouse gas accumulates in the atmosphere and accelerates global warming.

Deforestation also threatens the world's biodiversity. Tropical forests are home to great numbers of animal and plant species. When forests are logged or burned, it can drive many of those species into extinction. Some scientists say we are already in the midst of a mass-extinction episode.

More immediately, the loss of trees from a forest can leave soil more prone to erosion. This causes the remaining plants to become more vulnerable to fire as the forest shifts from being a closed, moist environment to an open, dry one.

While deforestation can be permanent, this is not always the case. In North America, for example, forests in many areas are returning thanks to conservation efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deforestation is the intentional clearing of forested land.

# data[].attributes.headline
The decline in Hong Kong's ranking on the Press Freedom Index published annually by Reporters Without Borders has been vertiginous: it stood at 148th in 2022, having dropped 68 places from the year prior; it ranked 71st place in 2015.

# data[].attributes.subject
The decline in Hong Kong's ranking on the Press Freedom Index published annually by Reporters Without Borders has been vertiginous: it stood at 148th in 2022, having dropped 68 places from the year prior; it ranked 71st place in 2015.

# data[].attributes.headline
According to Google, these are the only rights that HK has : the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel; the right to social welfare in accordance with law; freedom of marriage and the right to raise a family freely; to travel ; and other rights and freedoms safeguarded by the laws of Hong Kong SAR.

# data[].attributes.subject
According to Google, these are the only rights that HK has : the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel; the right to social welfare in accordance with law; freedom of marriage and the right to raise a family freely; to travel ; and other rights and freedoms safeguarded by the laws of Hong Kong SAR.

# data[].attributes.headline
Twenty-five years after the handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China, the growing repression of rights and freedoms have prompted over 100,000 people to leave Hong Kong for places like the U.K., Australia and Canada. Kwok says these residents can contribute a lot to Canadian society.

# data[].attributes.subject
Twenty-five years after the handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China, the growing repression of rights and freedoms have prompted over 100,000 people to leave Hong Kong for places like the U.K., Australia and Canada. Kwok says these residents can contribute a lot to Canadian society.

# data[].attributes.headline
Set to expire in 2047, the current arrangement has permitted Hong Kong to function as its own entity under the name "Hong Kong, China" in many international settings 

# data[].attributes.subject
Set to expire in 2047, the current arrangement has permitted Hong Kong to function as its own entity under the name "Hong Kong, China" in many international settings 

# data[].attributes.headline
The handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China was at midnight on 1 July 1997. This event ended 156 years of British rule in the former colony.

# data[].attributes.subject
The handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China was at midnight on 1 July 1997. This event ended 156 years of British rule in the former colony.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tension mounted in May 2020 after Beijing's decision to promulgate a national security bill for Hong Kong. More than a hundred people, including several prominent activists, have been arrested since the imposition of the law.

# data[].attributes.subject
Tension mounted in May 2020 after Beijing's decision to promulgate a national security bill for Hong Kong. More than a hundred people, including several prominent activists, have been arrested since the imposition of the law.

# data[].attributes.headline
In 1984, the British and Chinese governments signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration which stated that the sovereignty of Hong Kong should be transferred to the PRC on 1 July 1997, and Hong Kong should enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" under the "One Country, Two Systems" principle

# data[].attributes.subject
In 1984, the British and Chinese governments signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration which stated that the sovereignty of Hong Kong should be transferred to the PRC on 1 July 1997, and Hong Kong should enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" under the "One Country, Two Systems" principle

# data[].attributes.headline
In 2020, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong. Since then, authorities have arrested dozens of pro-democracy activists, lawmakers, and journalists; curbed voting rights; and limited freedoms of the press and speech.

# data[].attributes.subject
In 2020, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong. Since then, authorities have arrested dozens of pro-democracy activists, lawmakers, and journalists; curbed voting rights; and limited freedoms of the press and speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It goes without saying that at this moment in history, everyone in America is incensed and sickened by the level of gun violence plaguing society, and specifically the prevalence of mass shootings, and especially school shootings. At the least, we all should be able to agree that there is a problem. But because many of the solutions veer into the domain of politics, they also veer into the domain of the irrational, and the polarizing. That is the ultimate problem.

In an opinion piece posted on April 5th in The New York Times (and later underscored in a feature on April 13th), fiddler and front person of the old-time string band Old Crow Medicine Show, Ketch Secor, took to the pages of America's "Paper of Record" to lobby for country music artists to speak out on the issue of guns in America, and persuade the electorate towards more restrictions on gun ownership, including the banning of what Ketch characterizes as military-style assault weapons.

In the piece titled "Country Music Can Lead America Out of Its Obsession With Guns," Ketch Secor says, "Nashville is called the Athens of the South because it is teeming with scholars at its many colleges-and by country singers who are tired of bending to the whims of fearmongers and who are ready to speak from their platforms to an impressionable audience."

He also goes on to say, "...in times as dire as these, silence is complicity. It's time for country music makers to use their platforms to speak candidly to their conservative audiences. Our outrage needs to move from the green room to center stage."

What's completely understandable from Ketch Secor is his motivation to do something, anything about this issue, beyond simply participating in discussions among groups of like-minded people, or the performative posts on social media that do little and seem so fleeting as mass shootings come and pass. His attempt at leadership on this issue should be commended. And as a parent, the shooting on March 27th at the Covenant School in Nashville hit Ketch Secor especially close to home.

Speaking on attending and performing at a vigil a couple of days after the shooting, Secor says, "Earlier that day at Episcopal School, both of my kids had experienced their first active shooter-training drill. My daughter complained to me that she'd gotten an unlucky position at the desk her teacher instructed them to crawl behind. 'If there had been a shooter, I probably would have gotten shot,' she said with a nervous laugh."

You can't blame anyone for exploring pragmatic solutions on how to solve the gun violence problem. The problem with Ketch Secor's solution is that it is calling upon a long-held postulate that country music is somehow in a unique position to be a vehicle to enact political change due to the population it appeals to. But not only has this theory proven time and time again to be false, these efforts are more commonly counter-productive due to the wild misconceptions about both country music, and its fans.

First and foremost, lumping the responsibility for either addressing or curtailing mass shootings in America on a genre of music-or even worse, to claim a genre is somehow responsible or culpable for these tragedies-is a rather deleterious and irresponsible enterprise. It's similar to blaming video games for mass shootings, which has been disproven in multiple studies. By titling the op/ed "Country Music Can Lead America Out of Its Obsession With Guns," and later saying that "silence is complicity," there is an active effort to implicate country music in these tragic events by implying that the genre is in a position of power to do something about them that it just isn't.

Sure, cultural institutions like country music can perhaps help influence the mindset of the American population overall in certain respects. But country music cannot pass laws. Country music is not populated by politicians in positions of power. Country music is not in a position to enforce laws that are already on the books-including some that have been flaunted or broken in the perpetuation of mass shootings with the responsible parties in law enforcement yet to be held accountable. And perhaps most importantly, country music isn't responsible for the lobbying that keeps not just guns laws, but other laws and public policy preferred by the majority of the American population from moving forward.

Some may say, "Sure. But the idea here is that if country artists speak out on these matters through their platforms and songs, it can change the mindset of the population, who will then call upon their elected leaders to pass legislation."

The problem with this idea is there is a long and documented history of this not being the case, and for very specific reasons. When Natalie Maines of The [Dixie] Chicks said she was ashamed that President George W. Bush was from Texas on March 10th, 2003 in relation to the Iraq War, the country trio was blacklisted en masse and some country fans even burned their records. Even today when it's patently obvious that the [Dixie] Chicks were on the right side of the issue since no weapons of mass destruction were found and even President Trump and pundits like Tucker Carlson have come out against the Iraq War now, there is still bad blood with some country fans.

A smaller, but more recent example was the mischaracterization of Eric Church on the cover of Rolling Stone, where they portrayed the country singer as "loving Bernie Sanders" and being "opposed to the NRA" when in truth the views Church shared in the article itself were much more nuanced and right-leaning. Still to this day whenever you mention Eric Church, comments sections fill up with angry country fans not just calling out at Eric Church, but whatever outlet is reporting on him because he's an "anti-gun leftist."

An even more recent example was the 2023 CMT Awards, which included Kelsea Ballerini opening up the awards with a call for action against gun violence. Though the media and individuals in elitist circles praised the CMT Awards and Kelsea Ballerini's speech specifically, actual country music fans so overwhelmingly rejected the presentation overall--and for a host of reasons both politically-motivated and music-related-the actual real-life results landed somewhere between inconsequential, or as is commonly the case, counter-productive by inciting country fans to be even more affirmed in their political beliefs, and even more distrusting of institutions such as CMT for politicizing what they believe is an inherently non-political space.

People's political feelings are populated over their lifetimes, ingrained during their upbringings, inferred by their own life experiences, and though sometimes fluid to some extent, are not subject to the whims of pop culture. Time and time again, country fans have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they will divest their fandom from an artist who gets preachy with them about a political topic well before they'll ever question, let alone change their perspectives on a political matter at the behest of a pop star.

It is not only beyond hubris to believe people will forfeit their long-held beliefs because their favorite country artist tells them to, it is demeaning to act like country fans are nothing more than unwitting pawns in a political game that can be compelled to change their strips because it behooves someone's political ideology. The beliefs of country fans are what they are, and if you want to convince them of something different, you have to put in the hard work of breaking down decades of ingrained belief systems. The idea "country music" has the power to enact an overnight or even multi-year reformation of the rural electorate in America is patent fantasy.

What this effort does do, however, is it unnecessarily politicizes an otherwise non-political space. That is not to say that country music hasn't been political in the past, whether it's Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (The Angry American)" or Johnny Paycheck's "Take This Job and Shove It," or Loretta Lynn's "The Pill." But even these instances are commonly misunderstood. When Toby Keith cut "The Angry American," he was a registered Democrat. Though the same political pundits that believe you can reshape American politics through country music also love to cite Loretta Lynn's "The Pill" as an example of country music getting political, they rarely or never cite Loretta Lynn's staunch support of President Trump.

This is another problem with the idea of activating "country music" as an agent for political change. Ketch Secor says in his New York Times op/ed, "In my experience, country stars tend toward centrism. The right-wing groups we most often encounter are not our bandmates but our audiences." But when you hear country artist John Rich talk about the matter, he says that most country artists tend to lean right, and are just as afraid to speak out as people on the left because even though country fans may lean right, country media and its institutions have become so co-opted by the left, they will work to cancel performers if they speak out, which we have seen happen in multiple cases.

In September of 2022, John Rich said, "So, these artists are sitting there and they're being told by their publicist, their managers, the heads of their record labels, 'Hey, we know that you think these things about America, that you're against kind of all this woke stuff that we do'-they don't call themselves 'woke,' of course. But we know that you're not really for that. But hey, don't even think about putting out a post that pushes against that. Don't you say, X, Y, Z on your microphone or on your stage. No, you cannot record that song because it says this.' And they just completely control these artists."

An example is what we saw with Jason Aldean and his wife Brittany Aldean when they came out against vaccine requirements for children, and gender surgery for youth. Ironically, Jason Aldean had been on record previously saying that he avoided politics as a matter of course. But after his wife faced public backlash from sharing her political beliefs, Jason Aldean has become even more politically active, affirming that if you compel country artists to speak out politically, you may not get the outcome you were hoping for. They may even come out against what you were hoping they would speak about.

As Ketch Secor and others are claiming that country artists want to speak out on these matters but are worried of the repercussions from the industry and fans, John Rich is saying the same thing, just from the opposite perspective. So what is the truth of the matter? In some respects, both are right, because many country fans regardless of their political stripes do not want to hear country artists speak out about politically-polarizing subjects at all. They listen to country music to get away from these kinds of polarizing matters, to decompress and unwind, and they resent anyone who disrespects the institution of country music by trying to politicize it, even if they ironically (and often, hypocritically) are more open to it when it comes from a value system they believe in, and usually conservatism.

Again, it's noble and understandable that Ketch Secor, Kelsea Ballerini, and others want to do "something." They do this from a deep and sincere heart sickness at what is happening with gun violence in the United States that we all share. The problem is they are buying into an elitist ideology being perpetrated by academia and activist journalists who have been drilled on this idea that the way to change the American electorate from Red to Blue is to embed themselves into the country music community, and use its artists and institutions like a bullhorn to then spread their political ideologies. But again, it's not working, it never has, and it never will.

This ideology is flawed on many levels. It's worth underscoring that country music is not a monolith like the press and academia love to portray it as-stereotyping country music and its fans in a way that is insulting to the genre's omnivorous and complex nature. "Country music" cannot act as one, whether it is for gun control, or any other initiative. As we've seen from political polling since this idea of using country music to reshape the electorate has been enacted, red areas of the United States are only trending more red (and blue more blue). The result of individuals from elitist society deciding to put country music in their crosshairs and/or embed themselves in country media has been ineffective.

This also brings up another rabid misunderstanding about country fans, country music, and the American South in general. In Ketch Secor's New York Times op/ed, he forwards the idea that "country music" (as a monolith) and the American South has an outsized responsibility for the glorification of guns and violence in the United States.

"They say we love our guns down South, and it's true they are part of the pageantry of our beloved southland, in tune with the equally nostalgic heartstrings we pull for mother, God, freedom and country," Ketch Secor says. "Country music plays a central role in forming the South's gun mythology, from songs like "Big Iron" to "A Country Boy Can Survive." Seven nights a week in Nashville, you can hear any number of country upstarts remind the tourists in the honky-tonk bars on Lower Broad that Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno 'just to watch him die.'"

Is there an element of gun culture embedded in country music? There is to a certain extent. But this doesn't make country music any more responsible for gun violence than 1st person shooter video games. Again, this is an effort to implicate country music as being either okay, or somewhat culpable, or outright responsible for gun violence in an unfair and fear-mongering way. But this also begs the question, are the number of references to guns and violence in country anywhere near the level of those in hip-hop, for example? Absolutely not. The references to guns and murder in hip-hop might be 20 to 1 compared to country. Furthermore, there are no recent instances of country artists shooting others, shooting each other, or being shot. There were eight hip-hop artists murdered in 2022 alone.

Beyond that, is rural America actually listening to mainstream country music? Only elitist perspectives who've never spent any significant time in rural areas would draw that conclusion. When you actually venture out to rural America, you will find they're not listening to mainstream country music, with some exceptions of course. Mainstream country is music for the American suburbs, which if anything, trend purple in the political landscape. Rural America is listening to hip-hop. Hip-hop is by far and away the most dominant and most popular style of music in America across the board, especially in rural America, and specifically in the American South.

To the extent anyone is listening to country music in rural America, it is often classic country, or independent country, and this is not the domain Ketch Secor and others are hoping to reach with their calls for action in "country music." They want Morgan Wallen and Luke Combs to be the ones speaking out on these issues to reach the masses. But again, if these individuals calling for action actually knew what these major mainstream country stars actually believe about gun control, they would be begging for their silence, not demanding they speak out.

One of the fatal flaws of Ketch Secor's rationale is not just that he boils down the issue upon political lines. He also does it upon religious, geographic, and racial lines, making opposition to gun laws segmented among certain people. "If conservative Christian gun enthusiasts need a calling to lay down assault rifles after the tragedy at Covenant School, they need look no further than Isaiah 2:3-4, the Scriptures' peace crusader passage, in which swords are beaten to plowshares and spears to pruning hooks," Secor says.

But it's not the Christian values of conservatives that are keeping them from seeing the purpose of greater gun restrictions. It's the American values of individuals worried what a tyrannical government is capable of if they give up their right to bear arms, which is something shared by urban, liberal, Black, and agnostic citizens too, and even hip-hop artists and activist leaders such as Killer Mike of Run The Jewels.

Killer Mike faced criticism in March of 2018 for appearing on NRA TV defending Black gun ownership in America. He later spoke about the situation, country music, country's fake incorporation of hip-hop, and gun ownership in American with Joe Rogan in January of 2019.

"As an African American, I've only been free 55 years. My parents were born in apartheid. And as an American, we are a country that broke off from what we felt like was the tyranny of a monarchy. And we did that because farmers and guns dared to wage guerilla warfare against what at that time was one of the largest armies and navies in the world. So I honor that by continuing to be in the spirit of those farmers, in the continuance of Crispus Attucks, the first person to die in the American Revolution [who] was a Black man. For me, I would dishonor those patriots who started this country, and Crispus Attucks, and I would dishonor my lineage as an Africa American who's only 55 years into freedom by giving government my gun back. It's just not something I believe in."

You can see the full interview excerpt below:

The roots of modern gun control in the United States can be traced back to the attempted subjugation of the left-leaning Black Panther party in California, who used the 2nd Amendment to help take back their urban communities from racist policing practices. According to history.com:

Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California's gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, "The time has come for black people to arm themselves."

The display so frightened politicians-including California governor Ronald Reagan-that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.

Ironically, at that time the NRA supported gun control, because it benefited the organization's conservative values. The importance of guns to the struggle of urban Black populations in California was portrayed in this poignant scene in the 1995 film Panther:

Most important to understand of how this all relates to guns in America in the modern context is in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. For many people, this is when concerns for a tyrannical government went from a hypothetical to a reality. Though rural White conservatives were commonly blamed for extending the pandemic due to vaccine hesitancy, vaccine hesitancy was even greater among populations of urban Blacks and Southern Blacks due to things such as the Tuskegee Experiment, and who were discriminated against in greater per capita numbers by vaccine mandates and other restrictions.

During the pandemic, gun ownership spiked, with nearly 60 million new guns purchased, and more than 15 million Americans purchasing firearms for the first time. Now, the frequency of mass shootings is fueling even more gun sales, and across all demographics. To lump the responsibility or the solution for gun violence on any segment of individuals is to grossly misunderstand the problem.

But even though it might be easy to say what Ketch Secor and others are calling for in country music is based on a flawed ideology, what is harder to do is to forward ideas of what could or should be done to actually enact some meaningful element of change that may measurably decrease gun violence and mass shootings in America.

As opposed to taking wide, sweeping philosophical approaches to what "country music" could or should do, or generalizing Christians, conservatives, and country music fans as part of the problem as Ketch Secor does in The New York Times, Secor and other could get more specific, and more pragmatic.

For example, the shooter in the Covenant School incident in Nashville was currently under psychiatric care. There is broad and bipartisan support for addressing gun violence from a mental health standpoint, and a consensus that people suffering from mental health issues should have their access to firearms restricted. A red flag law or similar policy could very well have stopped the shooter in their tracks since they purchased the firearms used in the shooting legally. 80% of Americans support red flag laws, including 2/3rds of Republicans.

In June of 2022, The United States Congress passed a law in the wake of the school shooting in Uvalde, TX that made it easier for states to pass and support red flag laws, with 15 Republican senators voting for the bill. The idea that conservative country music fans are standing in the way of meaningful and sensible legislation to make sure people with a history of violence or who are suffering from mental health issues cannot obtain a gun is false. A majority of them agree guns should not end up in the hands of the wrong people.

Mistakes by police and government officials have also contributed to mass shootings in a significant way. The Uvalde shooting could have been avoided if it wasn't for a faulty door lock on the school, or less people could have died if law enforcement had acted quicker to take down the subject. There is also broad consensus behind holding public officials to account.

The same day that Ketch Secor published his op/ed in The New York Times, a $144 million settlement was reached between The United States Government and survivors of the 26 people who were killed in a mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX in 2017. In that case, the Air Force was found negligent for not reporting the gunman's history of violence to the background check database, which allowed him to purchase the guns used in the shooting legally when he should have been denied. Country musician Kullen Fox, who plays keys/trumpet for Charley Crockett lost relatives in the Sutherland Springs shooting.

Often when it comes to mass shootings, we find law enforcement or government officials ignored red flags, calls from concerned citizens, and other signs that could have potentially prevented the incidents, or acted in a cowardly manner in a way that caused more death. How "country music" is deemed to be in a position to address these issues compared to these governmental organizations who've been put in responsibility of enforcing current laws is quite curious. Perhaps what country music artists and fans could do is help hold these governmental organizations accountable, since they are the ones directly tasked with protecting citizens, and in case after case, have been found to have made mistakes.

Specific to the Covenant School shooting, the investigators are refusing to the release the shooter's manifesto publicly, which specifically details why the shooting occurred. How are we supposed to address the root causes of mass shootings when the public is not even allowed to learn what motivated this particular incident? The answer is simple. They don't want us to know. And in that vacuum of knowledge, country music is being implicated due to the shooting's proximity to Nashville.

Ketch Secor also says in the opinion piece, "The country community has lost its way if it thinks owning an AR-15 is more important than a child's right to safely attend school."

But of course, nobody believes that. Fans and performers of country music love their children. Owners of AR-15's love their children. Everyone wants to know their children are protected in school and everywhere else, and they want all children to be protected. Often, this is why people purchase AR-15s. This false equivalency and dehumanization of gun owners in the "country community" as being against a child's right to safely attend school is a rather tone deaf and judgemental comment in an otherwise thoughtful commentary from Ketch Secor.

The shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville was definitely seen by some in the activist community as an opportunity to activate "country music" in the gun debate due to the shooting's proximity to the country music industry. As political strategist and former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel once said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

But these activists seem to forget that the largest mass shooting in modern history happened at a country music concert. 60 people were killed, and 413 injured at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in 2017. Jason Aldean was on stage when the shooting happened. Did this stimulate a serious reformation among country artists and fans about how to approach the gun issue? Did it inspire Jason Aldean to change his mind on political issues? No, it did not.

But even if the Las Vegas mass shooting had caused a major change in thought, or even if Ketch Secor's op/ed in The New York Times did similar, there is a good chance it wouldn't result in any measurable difference in public policy because of the autocratic nature of the United States government at the moment, and the power of the lobbying class and corporations that use divisive topics like gun control to keep the electorate perpetually divided and fighting amongst itself so it never finds enough consensus to depose the political elite.

But for some (though not likely Ketch Secor), enacting gun control is not even the point of putting the onus for gun violence on country music. The point is to impugn and implicate country music in America's gun violence issue so they can gain power over it as a cultural institution, and then use it for their ulterior political purposes. And if they can't use country music as a vehicle for their political activism, they will work to undermine or destroy it, hence why a site called "Saving Country Music" concerns itself with these matters.

This is not to say that country artists, country fans, and people in the country music industry can't do something. They can. But if it's going to have any real effect, it has to be pragmatic, and specific. There are an estimated 20 million AR-15-style guns in private ownership in America at the moment, and rising, and rising specifically due to the levels of gun violence. The United States also has more guns than people.

The idea that "Country Music Can Lead America Out of Its Obsession With Guns" any more than hip-hop, video game manufacturers, violent movie producers, or anything else can is simply delusion. Instead of talking down to country music artists and fans, perhaps compel them to advocate for greater mental health services if they claim America's mass shooting epidemic is a mental health problem and not a gun problem. Compel them to support policies that ensure those currently suffering from mental health issues are not allowed to legally purchase or posses guns.

But another way to address America's mental health crisis is to give people places and things in society where they can escape the rabid polarization, politicization, stereotyping, and blame that pervades so much of popular culture. Music is an escape, and a place where people can come together across ideological divides. Attempting to politicize country music-by both sides of the political aisle, including pro-gun organizations like the NRA that has enacted specific campaigns to court country music fans-should be frowned upon.

This is not to say that country artists should also not feel free to assert their political views if they so choose. This is not to say "shut up and sing." But country artists and fans are not your pawns. They should have the right to freely hold and express whatever views they choose as well. They should also have the right to not express those views if they so choose, and that doesn't make them callous or complicit in the violence any more than it does the Buddhist monks who've given their lives to oaths of silence. It often just means they are conflict-averse, or see their role in society as ratcheting down polarizing rhetoric by giving people a place to escape, decompress, come together, or even commiserate with each other through stories of broken-heartedness, loneliness, and isolation that country music can uniquely address.

Music can mend hearts and reshape minds in ways political efforts can't. Using story and allegory through music itself as opposed to sloganeering on social media or grandstanding from the stage is often the more effective strategy for artists to address social strife. In fairness, Ketch Secor did make this point in a response to a comment on The New York Times op/ed, but it would have been made better in the body of it.

You also have to reach country artists and fans where they are. Not only are country fans wary of being talked down to, they're specifically unlikely to interact with anything published in The New York Times specifically, especially if it's behind a paywall, rendering it impossible for them to reach. Same goes for CNN, which only 20% of Americans believe is truthful.

Ultimately, these efforts only have the outcome of feeding into further elite discourse that looks to lay blame on others and to divide, when in reality we are all to blame for the level of gun violence in America. We're all complicit it creating an environment where so many feel the only way to express themselves is violence against innocents and suicide, and we all have a responsibility to try and do something about it in our everyday interactions with others.
UPDATE: On Thursday morning (4-27), Ketch Secor and Old Crow Medicine Show released a new song addressing gun violence called "Louder Than Guns."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Country Fans Aren't Unwitting Pawns (a Response to Ketch Secor & NYT)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It goes without saying that at this moment in history, everyone in America is incensed and sickened by the level of gun violence plaguing society, and specifically the prevalence of mass shootings, and especially school shootings. At the least, we all should be able to agree that there is a problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ketch Secor is best known as the frontman of the country band Old Crow Medicine Show, but he's also a school administrator, and the father of young children.

He was wearing all three hats when he penned an opinion piece for the New York Times called "Country Music Can Lead America Out of Its Obsession With Guns."

In it, Secor calls on his fellow country musicians to join him in taking a stand against assault-style weapons in the U.S.

He says he was inspired to do so after a shooter opened fire at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tenn., on March 27, killing three nine-year old students and three adult staff using legally purchased firearms.

Secor spoke to As It Happens host Nil Köksal about his essay, and the role he thinks country music can play in bringing gun reform to the United States. Here is part of their conversation.
Apart from, you know, being in Nashville, there are many other ways that this latest school shooting hit home for you. Can you tell me about that?
It's been a heartbreaking experience in my community of Nashville. But doubly so as a parent of children that are the same ages as the kids who died at Covenant School last week. And then triply so because I started a school in my community and I'm thinking about school shootings with an administrative hat on.

And then, as a country musician, you know, I'm urging my brethren and sistren in to speak up.
One of your children had just had their first drill in school about how to deal with these kinds of scenarios, is that right?
Yeah. And I'm sure there's some moms and dads across Canada who have had the same experience of talking to their kids about how they feel about having huddled behind a desk.

It's a different kind of fire drill. And I wouldn't want my kid to be in a school fire. That sounds so, so terrifying. But there's something different about when the threat is another person.
You wrote for the New York Times ... that it's not uncommon for you to hear one of your most famous songs, Wagon Wheel, for example, you know, blasting from a pickup truck that also happens to have [National Rifle Association] bumper stickers. What do you want to say to those fans?
The first thing I want to say is how much I love them. And how the political persuasions of my audience, they don't challenge my own. I believe what I believe. And I'm comfortable with being in a space where people think differently, even vastly differently. Different gods, different ideologies, different allegiances. That's all fine with me.

I love country music. And to put it bluntly, I love my redneck fans. I love them deeply and intimately. And I want to provide music for them because I care about them. I want there to be soundtracks for rural America with fiddles and banjos and harmony singing.

Do you think your fans are prepared to hear that message?
It's just at this moment in time, I want my audience to know that I feel that I've got to go out on a limb here and say that the assault rifles, we got to give them up. It's time to make a sacrifice for our kids.

And I realize that that has the power to alienate people. But I'm not doing it from a [perspective] of, you know, "We're going to come to your house." I'm doing it with love. And it's a question. It's like, will the circle be unbroken?
WATCH | The Nashville shooting ignites political tensions in the U.S.:
I think my fans who have listened to Old Crow music more than once or twice know where my heart is. So it's not so much them that I'm concerned about. My platform is about as big as a platform can get when you have this many banjos and harmonicas in your band.
I was struck by several parts of your essay, but I'll just read one in particular. You wrote, "Conservative musicians are always vocal when it comes to the culture wars, but stars with moderate views tend not to weigh in publicly. The motive is genuine. We don't want to offend anyone. But in times as dire as these, silence is complicity. It's time for country music makers to use their platforms to speak candidly to their conservative audiences." How do you think country music and its stars can play a part and actually be effective in bringing in different kinds of gun control measures?
I think I'm more interested in helping start a conversation in Nashville about how people with much more vast platforms and opportunities to speak out than myself may think about country music's problematic past with guns and its opportunity to be a part of a national conversation that's so desperately needed right now.

Every morning at about 7:30, the musicians that are on Jumbotrons around the country and playing to sold-out arenas are actually in the pickup line dropping off their kids at school. You know, we're just regular working folk; we just have a really cool job.

But we live in Nashville, Tennessee, primarily, these country singers who are popular all around the world. And we tend to be an educated and centrist-thinking and open-to-other-opinions type of demographic. And we love our kids. You know, all of the big, big stars with kids, their hearts are broken right now.
What kind of response have you received so far?
So what I could imagine would be this opportunity that country music has to take a stand.

[It's] not [that] everybody's got to get rid of the Second Amendment in the United States. It's not that at all. Just token advancements to push the needle a little bit. It's been 25-some years since I was a kid and the murders happened at Columbine. And nothing has changed, particularly in gun laws down south.

I woke up this morning hoping that the world was going to be different because I took a stand. And, you know, I think that there's a crushing reality.
At a vigil last week after the shooting in Nashville, you were on stage and you sang, Will The Circle be Unbroken?, which you referred to a moment ago. It's a Christian hymn for those who might not know, but it's been recorded by many big stars over the years. But what was that moment like for you singing those words?
I took my stand because I need about 100,000 other people to take theirs. And that's what I'm asking.

We all deserve safe schools for our kids. Safe schools should be an inalienable right. Personally, I think that that right should be a more important one to lawmakers than the Second Amendment.

I had my my third grade child with me blowing some harmonica and helping me sing the choruses. And I thought that was an important way to exemplify just who whose voice really matters in this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In the wake of the Nashville school shooting, a country star takes a stand on gun control | CBC Radio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ketch Secor is best known as the frontman of the country band Old Crow Medicine Show, but he's also a school administrator, and the father of young children. He was wearing all three hats when he penned an opinion piece for the New York Times called "Country Music Can Lead America Out of Its Obsession With Guns ."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How country music can help in the gun reform fight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ketch Secor - MSNBC - The Morning Joe - 5.5.23

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Old Crow Medicine Show - Louder Than Guns (Official Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Little Refugee by Anh Do & Suzanne Do

# data[].attributes.headline
Short video that introduces the Bill of Rights 

# data[].attributes.subject
Short video that introduces the Bill of Rights 

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Animals Have Human Rights Podcast

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Animals Have Human Rights Podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nate Hegyi: Before we start... should all introduce ourselves. I'm Nate.

Nick Capodice: Nick.

Hannah McCarthy: Hannah.

Nate Hegyi: Great. Now I want you both to picture this: It's a Wednesday afternoon in Albany, New York.

Nick Capodice: Hold on, Nate. One more time. It's Albany.

Nate Hegyi: Ahhh. Albany. Albany. Albany. It's a Wednesday afternoon in Albany, New York. A bunch of lawyers are gathered in the state's court of appeals.

Nick Capodice: I do so love a good "gathering of lawyers" story...

Nate Hegyi: Attorney Monica Miller makes her way to the PODIUM. And she looks a little nervous standing in front of this big row of judges.

Monica Miller: Yes, Good afternoon your honors, may it please the court.

Nate Hegyi: But then she just launches into her spiel. She represents a 64-year-old who she says has been illegally detained in a prison in the Bronx for years. Miller's client only has a first name. Happy.

Monica Miller: If she hadn't been kidnapped from Thailand as a baby, Happy could be a matriarch herself. But instead of leading her sisters and cousins and grandchildren hundreds of miles through ancient migratory routes.

Nate Hegyi: So, Miller wants the court to grant Happy freedom.... But there's a hitch because... as you might be able to guess by now... Happy isn't a person.

Hannah McCarthy: I had a feeling that was coming.

Nate Hegyi: Right? She's an elephant. Living in the Bronx Zoo.

Tour Guide: We are now about to see our Asian elephant, Happy.

Nate Hegyi: But Miller and a team of lawyers are arguing that Happy isn't just an animal in a zoo. That she's actually a legal person with rights to freedom and liberty. One that's being held in a prison. And this is just the latest case in an ongoing fight to extend basic human rights to animals. And because this is a case that deals with animals and the law, two podcasts from New Hampshire Public Radio are teaming up for this special crossover episode. I'm Nate Hegyi with Outside/In - we cover nature and the environment.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: We are the hosts of Civics 101. Basically we explain how government works.

Nick Capodice: And we always hear about the animal rights movement, but, Nate, what rights do animals actually have?

Nate Hegyi: We're going to dive into that question, and how this case about an elephant in New York, could have massive consequences for zoos, farms, and even your own cats and dogs.

Nate Hegyi: Hannah, Nick, before we dig in, I need you to meet a friend of mine. Her name is Gilly and she is a three-legged dog. Hi, Gilly!

Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice: Oh Hi Gilly!

Nick Capodice: Do you ever call her tripod because she's tri-pawed?

Nate Hegyi: We've definitely called her tripod!

Hannah McCarthy: Oh that's so cute.

Nate Hegyi: So to your knowledge right now, does this sweet little dog Gilly have any legal rights?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, so I know that animals are pretty much considered property, but we do have a bunch of federal protections for animals. I know you can't beat her or, you know, withhold food and water. You can't make Gilly dog fight. Right? That's a felony in all 50 states.

Nate Hegyi: So I just want to be clear here. Hannah, I would. I would never beat Gilly or make her get into a dog fight.

Nick Capodice: Or withhold food and water from her.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, but you can't abuse her, right?

Nate Hegyi: I can't abuse her. Yeah. And so these rights that you're talking about, they're called anti-cruelty laws. And, these are one of the biggest protections that animals like Gilly have right now in the Western world. They essentially say you can't hurt or abuse certain animals. And they really got popular in the 19th century. Abolitionists were questioning slavery, the treatment of Indigenous people, child labor... and animal welfare. And we saw a lot of these anti-cruelty laws pop up across the country. In 1866 the New York State legislature established the American Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals also known as... Nick?

Nick Capodice: yeah, I'm going to go with the ASPCA

Nate Hegyi: yes! The ASPCA.And they actually had people with badges and uniforms walking the streets of New York City and breaking up cockfights and stopping folks from being mean to their horses.

Nick Capodice: That's fantastic!

Nate Hegyi: It was a big cultural shift for this country. Treating animals not as brutes or beasts, but as things deserving of some gentleness and kindness. Nowadays, though, one of the big critiques of anti-cruelty laws is that they don't go far enough. They're also biased... in the sense that the prevailing human culture gets to decide which animals receive kindness... and which animals we're cool with hurting and killing. Like, I'll give the example of cats. In the 19th century, cats were on the crap list.

Nick Capodice: Cats, why were cats on the crap list?

Nate Hegyi: Because they killed, and still do kill, beautiful songbirds. And Some of the same folks saying that we should protect animals were also arguing we should kill all the cats!

Hannah McCarthy: That is so bizarre. But of course, you know, they are, witches familiar, so...

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And they like, didn't they like suck the breath out of children?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes, Cats would suck the air out of you in your sleep.

Nate Hegyi: Well there you go. That's another reason. Not only do they kill beautiful songbirds, but they also suck the breath out of children. I mean, that's that's really terrible.

Hannah McCarthy: For the record, I love cats.

Nick Capodice: That makes one of us.

Nate Hegyi: And obviously, nowadays, cats are in that protected class of cute, cuddly animals along with dogs or horses. You can't abuse them. But at the same time... many of us are still comfortable hurting other animals like cows or chickens at a factory farm. And that's where I want to bring in Maneesha Deckha who is a law professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. And she's actually pretty critical of these anti-cruelty laws for that very reason.

Maneesha Deckha: Really what you have is a legal situation where cruelty is only ever thought by legal actors to maybe apply to kind of culturally aberrant practices. So like putting your cat in the microwave.

Hannah McCarthy: Did she just say putting a cat in a microwave?

Nate Hegyi: Yes she did, because she's making the point that obviously putting a cat in the microwave would be considered animal cruelty. But cutting off a chicken's beak and putting it in a small cage with tons of other chickens: not considered animal cruelty.

Maneesha Deckha: Even though the level of pain and suffering to that animal can be the same as what happens to a cat in a microwave.

Nick Capodice: Do chickens, cows and other livestock... Do they have any legal protections or rights at the federal level, like the cuddly animals do?

Nate Hegyi: Ehh... not really. I don't know if you would call this legal "protection" but there is a law that requires livestock to be afforded a quick and efficient death. But it also doesn't include turkeys or chickens. And all livestock animals are exempted from the country's big anti-cruelty law... the federal Animal Welfare Act... along with mice and rats.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, what about wild animals? Have we protected them in any way?

Nate Hegyi: Another meh for that one. It's a mixed bag. We have the Endangered Species Act, which gives some habitat and hunting protections to imperiled species like grizzly bears. And wild horses on federal lands have special legal protections - we can't hunt them. But at the same time you can still go out and buy one of those sticky traps for a field mouse, or buy a .22 and pick off squirrels that are trying to steal from your birdfeeder.

Nick Capodice: Right, right. And you can, like, set traps for foxes and coyotes that are arguably cruel and hurt them, but it's not illegal.

Nate Hegyi: Exactly. And Maneesha argues that these animal welfare and conservation laws aren't really rights... at least as you and I have them.

Maneesha Deckha: Which means the right not to be killed by somebody else for their purpose or the right not to have your body used for someone else's profit. And that's how animals are used.

Nate Hegyi: And that brings us to the latest battlefront. A slow grind towards granting animals something called personhood. Maneesha says that Western common law pretty much divides the world into two categories. You're either a person or you're a thing.

Maneesha Deckha: so either as a rights holder. So then you get to typically be seen as a person or you are the object of rights.

Nate Hegyi: And the big lift for animal rights activists is convincing judges that an animal isn't a thing that we humans get to lord over. Instead, that it's a person. At least in a legal sense.

Nick Capodice: This is an argument we've talked about a lot on our show. It's been used in the past to give basic human rights to women, black Americans, indigenous people. But in this case, I feel like it could get pretty fraught pretty quickly when activists start comparing the oppression of animals to the oppression of humans.

Nate Hegyi: Right , that was one reason why the first case trying to establish personhood for animals in the United States failed. And that story is coming up right after the break.

Nick Capodice: And hey, since we're taking a little break here now is the perfect time to sign up for our free Civics 101 newsletter. It's called Extra Credit. We pour our heart and soul, and a fair number of political dinner-party factoids into this thing, so you can sign up at our website, Civics101.org, and we'll put a link in the show notes.

Nate Hegyi: Hey. you're listening to a special crossover episode between Outside/In and Civics 101. I'm Outside/In host Nate Hegyi.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And I'm Nick Capodice. We're from Civics 101.

Nate Hegyi: All right. So we're going to talk about Tommy.

ABC News: 26-year-old Tommy may not sound like the greatest catch. He's a retired circus performer, living alone behind a trailer park, watching TV all day and night.

Nick Capodice: Oh, that reporter just loved that joke, did he? Oh, he's going to get everybody in America.

Nate Hegyi: So, that was ABC News, and as you can probably guess again, Tommy isn't a human; he's a chimpanzee. And he was actually in this movie in the late eighties called Project X with Matthew Broderick....

Project X: These are monkeys! I don't know anything about monkeys!

Nate Hegyi: But by the 2000's... Tommy was living with a family in New York State in essentially a jail cell with palm trees painted on the walls. Just Tommy and a color T.V. playing cartoons.

Nick Capodice: Oh, that's horrible.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, that's just, yeah.

Nick Capodice: After a long and illustrious film career, you know?

Nate Hegyi: So in 2013 this animal rights law firm called the Nonhuman Rights Project heard about Tommy's situation. And one of their main goals is to establish personhood for animals. And if you're a lawyer trying to push a new legal precedent like this, you have to look for the perfect case to carry it. And Tommy's case looked pretty dang good.

Hannah McCarthy: How so? What differentiates Tommy's case from any other case?

Nate Hegyi: Well, there were three big reasons. First, he's a chimp. Highly intelligent, an ape, so its in the same taxonomic family as humans. Chimps remind people of people and the thought is that could engender more sympathy with both the courts and with the public. And speaking of the public, the second reason why it was a good case is that Tommy lived in New York State which is a major media market. That means Tommy's case could get a lot of attention. That's important if you're trying to change hearts and minds about how we treat animals, right? And the third reason was that Tommy was in captivity. Which means the lawyers could petition the state for something called a writ of habeas corpus. Alright, Civics 101 friends. What is that?

Nick Capodice: Hannah, you want to take this one?

Hannah McCarthy: I think I can.

Nick Capodice: First. Nate, I wonder if you can do this. Can you, like, get some sort of, like, a medieval soundtrack going on in the background? Like some swords clanging and people being like, Ho there!

Nate Hegyi: Can I just do it with my own voice? Cling! Cling! Cling!

Nick Capodice: Hannah What time are we talking about when it comes to the first writ of habeas corpus?

Hannah McCarthy: Do you really want me to do this?

Nick Capodice: I do.

Hannah McCarthy: The high middle ages!

Nick Capodice: I'm sorry, Nate. This is a long running joke. Basically, just between the two of us. Hannah did an episode on Magna Carta for our founding documents series, and she opened with the line, the high Middle Ages. And we haven't stopped laughing about it for three years.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, so, the idea of habeas corpus is in Magna Carta. That's from the high Middle Ages, and it became a part of English common law after that point. The expression later found its way into Article one, Section nine of the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to give you the quote here. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

So what does that mean?

What habeas corpus does is protect people from unlawful or indefinite imprisonment without a hearing.

Nate Hegyi: Habeas Corpus is also a great way to establish personhood. Because only quote unquote legal persons are eligible. If Tommy is granted habeas corpus - he could become a legal person. Which means he'd have the human right of bodily liberty. He could go free.

It also means he could be eligible for other rights, and not just be considered an object or property. Tommy's case is the first of its kind in the United States. The lawyers? They're feeling good about their chances.

Kevin Schneider: We felt pretty strongly that just the wealth of science about the cognition and behavior of chimpanzees would really open doors.

Nate Hegyi: So that's attorney Kevin Schnieder. He's the executive director of the Nonhuman Rights Project. And side note - When we were talking HIS three-legged rescue dog kept walking through his dining room making a bunch of noise.

Kevin Schneider: I might just have to stop for a second because my dog is loudly drinking water behind me.

Nate Hegyi: But anyways, in building the court case for Tommy the chimp, the nonhuman rights project pointed back to cases from two or three hundred years ago.

Kevin Schneider: Where women, children, certainly African-Americans, slaves, Indigenous peoples were treated in horrendous ways. And when they tried to make claims to courts, they were routinely told, you don't have rights, you are not a person. You are something less than a full person in the eyes of the law.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, wait, wait, wait. Comparing the plight of enslaved black Americans, for example, to that of apes has a really racist legacy in the West.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, basically 19th and 20th century eugenicists fabricated grotesque racist hierarchies with black people being labeled closer to apes than white people. And in the 1900s, there were like literally humans in zoos. The Bronx Zoo, which is part of our story today. The Bronx Zoo had a Congolese teenager on display in the monkey exhibit in 1906.

Nate Hegyi: That is absolutely terrible. And this is where the Nonhuman Rights Project got a lot of flack by both judges and the media. I mean, take a listen to this back and forth between a black reporter and the group's white founder, Steven Wise. It's from this 2016 HBO documentary called Unlocking the Cage.

Reporter: And of course, those equating chimpanzees and apes and stuff like that, obviously hideously. So with black people and say, well, wait a minute, you know, you know, chimps are chimps. They are not humans. Steven Wise: Obviously, we're not saying we're not saying that a chimpanzee is a human and we're not equating chimpanzees with slaves.

Nate Hegyi: Still, the Nonhuman Rights Project couldn't shake those connotations. Steven Wise got called out by a judge during one of Tommy's hearings.

Unlocking the Cage: I keep having a difficult time with you using slavery as an anology to this situation. I just have to tell you that. Steven Wise: Let me suggest this, that by referring to human slavery we are no way comparing Tommy to any. Judge: I understand but my suggestion is that you move in a different direction for your remaining two minutes.

Nate Hegyi: And the courts, they ended up rejecting Wise's petition for a few different reasons. One of them was this - a chimp isn't a person because they can't bear legal duties. They don't have societal responsibilities and they can't be held legally accountable for their actions. Although an Appeals Court judge later issued a separate opinion that really challenged that idea.

Kevin Schneider: he pointed out quite correctly that many do not have the ability to take on legal duties. If someone is a child, if an older person has dementia or Alzheimer's or someone's in a coma, they don't have the ability to take on legal duties. But we certainly don't take away their rights.

Hannah McCarthy: That, to me, seems like a far better argument to make before a judge, Right? As opposed to bringing up enslaved people.

Nate Hegyi: Absolutely. Regardless, Tommy's case had hit a dead end. But that same year, the nonhuman rights project began pursuing a different case, one that would allow them to move away from the racial implications of comparing apes and humans.

Hannah McCarthy: Is this Happy?

Nate Hegyi: Yes, Happy the elephant.

News Montage: An animal rights group is suing the zoo, claiming the 40-year-old elephant...

Nate Hegyi: So as we heard... Happy is a middle-aged elephant living by herself in the Bronx Zoo. which is tough because elephants are these really social, complex creatures. And Happy in particular is one smart cookie. She was the first elephant in the world to pass this thing called the mirror recognition test.

Nick Capodice: What is the mirror recognition test?

Nate Hegyi: So I'll let Kevin explain:

Kevin Schneider: they marked her head with an X and then put her in front of a mirror. And if the subject stands in the mirror and, you know, touches the mark on the head while they're looking at themselves in the mirror, but they're touching, obviously, themselves, that actually means quite a lot. It means that they're able to appreciate that this image that they're looking at is actually themselves. And that takes quite a bit of mental machinery, a surprising amount.

Hannah McCarthy: So she recognized herself in the mirror.

Nate Hegyi: Right! Which... humans, we don't have that level of self-awareness until we are about two years old. So they have this really smart, socially complex elephant. And the nonhuman rights project files a writ of habeas corpus saying Happy is imprisoned in the Bronx Zoo. They want her declared as a person and released to a special wildlife sanctuary in Tennessee. This case has been slowly leveling up through the New York State courts over the past four years. Which brings us to May 18th.

Court of Appeals: Here ye, here ye, here ye...

Nate Hegyi: It's a warm spring day in Albany and oral arguments are just beginning at the New York State court of appeals.

Court of Appeals: Judges of the court...

Nate Hegyi: And by the way, I've never watched a court of appeals hearing before and dang, those judges go hard! Happy's lawyer, her name is Monica Miller. And she's just getting into her argument when one of the judges straight up interrupts her.

Judge Rivera: Counsel, counsel... I'm on the screen. Good afternoon.

Nate Hegyi: So all of these judges are just lobbing questions. But they seem stuck on two points. The first one is that... bottomline... Happy isn't a human being. When Happy's lawyer starts pointing back into history at cases where marginalized humans weren't considered legal persons, she's stopped dead in her tracks.

Judge Rivera: But even in those examples, they're all human beings. The court is recognizing the humanity in each of those cases. How can the court apply habeas when we're not talking about a human? How do we make that move from one point of the spectrum to this other point that you're arguing for.

Nate Hegyi: Happy's lawyer pushes back and says species membership isn't the right marker for deciding whether something is deserving of a basic human right. Instead, it's intelligence and autonomy.

Monica Miller: And we're not talking about making basic choices like make a noise or don't make a noise, or choose this food or that food. We're talking extensive communication.

Nate Hegyi: The other sticking point for the judges appeared to be... what kind of pandora's box does this open if Happy wins and gets declared a person with this basic human right?

Nick Capodice: Right. And this is what I've heard about regarding this case, the slippery slope argument like, well, what's next? You know, are we are none of us ever going to eat meat again?

Nate Hegyi: Right. Or like, what about dogs?

Judge: So does that mean that I couldn't keep a dog? I mean, dogs can memorize words.

Hannah McCarthy: And what about, like, pigs at a factory farm, right? Pigs are highly intelligent and emotionally complex animals. So do they get a right to freedom if Happy wins?

Nate Hegyi: Well, That's what industry groups representing zoos, farms and veterinarian associations all worry about. Lawyers for all of these groups have written amicus briefs urging the court of appeals to reject Happy's case. The farm lawyers, they're worried about economic and social upheaval. The vet lawyers are worried that if animals gain personhood, then it could destroy the idea of ownership and that people might not be able to make medical decisions for their cats and dogs.

Nick Capodice: But Nate, if Happy wins this case, that doesn't mean that all the animals are going to be immediately freed from zoos and farms. That's just not how common law works. Right?

Nate Hegyi: Like, if Happy actually wins - which by the way even her lawyers think it's a total longshot - but if she does win, technically only Happy will receive personhood and this basic right to liberty. So here's Kevin Schnieder again.

Kevin Schneider: So it won't immediately free any other animals, not even other elephants. You know, there are other zoo elephants in New York. That being said, I think it would make, certainly make it a lot easier to make an argument on behalf of other elephants.

Nate Hegyi: So they're not buying the whole slippery slope argument, but at the same time - the whole point of a case like this is to create some sort of pathway... because right now, all nonhuman animals are objects in the eyes of the law. And that's that.

Kevin Schneider: I also think for great apes in the state, it would also open doors for them in large part because, you know, these are the species we have been talking about from day one. Elephants, great apes, dolphins, whales. They have a sense of themselves, their past, their present, their future. They can make decisions for their own lives, meaningful decisions, and reflect on those decisions.

Hannah McCarthy: So, Nate, when did oral arguments happen in this case?

Nate Hegyi: May 18, 2022. So this year.

Hannah McCarthy: So when will the judges make their decision?

Nate Hegyi: I mean, it could be a month or more. But when it does come, we'll be sure to give an update to all you listeners out there.

Nick Capodice: Well, I gotta say, thank you very much Nate, this was a ton of fun!

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, can we do it again sometime?

Nate Hegyi: Oh my god, I would love to.

Nick Capodice: The real question is what should we cover next, you know, on our crossover. What about something like... The Migratory Bird Treaty Act?

Hannah McCarthy: What about something like the creation of the EPA?

Nate Hegyi: I'd love to dig into the history of the National Weather Service.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah!

Nick Capodice: Whoo! Well, let's enshrine our democracy and put it to a vote. Why don't we put it to listeners - folks, if you've got a suggestion for the next Civic 101 Outside/In crossover episode, you can email us, tweet at us, send us a letter by pigeon, whatever makes sense for you.

Nate Hegyi: Whats your handle? How can people find you?

Nick Capodice: We're @civics101pod

Nate Hegyi: And we're at @outsideinradio

Credits:

Nate Hegyi: This episode was produced and reported by me, Nate Hegyi, with Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice.

Nick Capodice: It was edited by Taylor Quimby, Rebecca Lavoie, with help from me, Nate, and Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: It was mixed by Nate Hegyi. City pronunciation fact-checking by Nick Capodice.

Nick Capodice: It is ALL-bany, Nate

Nate Hegyi: Albany, Albany, Albany.

Hannah McCarthy: Our executive producer is Rebecca Lavoie

Nate Hegyi: Music from this episode came from El Flaco Collective, The Fly Guy Five, Jules Gaia, and peerless.

Our theme is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Outside/In...

Hannah McCarthy: AND Civics 101...

Nate Hegyi: Are both productions of New Hampshire Public Radio!

Nick McCarthy: (elephant noise)

Hannah McCarthy: That was so unpleasant.

Nick McCarthy: You didn't like my elephant sound? Sorry, Nate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Animals Have Human Rights? - Civics 101: A Podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Happy has lived in New York City's Bronx Zoo for years. To visitors, she's a lone Asian elephant. But to a team of animal rights lawyers , she's a prisoner. DONATE TO OUR PODCAST IN JUNE AND YOU COULD WIN A $500 AIR BNB GIFT CARD - PLUS YOU'LL GET A SNAZZY NEW CIVICS 101 STICKER!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Victoria Jamieson and Omar Mohamed, "When Stars Are Scattered"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
We Shall Overcome Rewritten About Voting Rights 

# data[].attributes.subject
We Shall Overcome Rewritten About Voting Rights 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Now I've been happy lately Thinking about the good things to come And I believe it could be Something good has begun Oh, I've been smiling lately Dreaming about the world as one And I believe it could be Someday it's going to come 'Cause out on the edge of darkness There rides the peace train Oh, peace train take this country Come take me home again Now I've been smiling lately Thinkin' about the good things to come And I believe it could be Something good has begun Oh, peace train sounding louder Glide on the peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah Come on now, peace train Yes, peace train holy roller Everyone jump upon the peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah Come on now, peace train Get your bags together Go bring your good friends too Because it's getting nearer It soon will be with you Now come and join the living It's not so far from you And it's getting nearer Soon it will all be true Oh, peace train sounding louder Glide on the peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah Come on now peace train Peace train Now I've been crying lately Thinkin' about the world as it is Why must we go on hating? Why can't we live in bliss? 'Cause out on the edge of darkness There rides a peace train Oh, peace train take this country Come take me home again Oh, peace train sounding louder Glide on the peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah Come on now, peace train Yes, peace train holy roller Everyone jump upon the peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah Come on, come on, come on Yes, come on, peace train Yes, it's the peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah Come on now, peace train Oh, peace train Ooh-ah, ee-ah, ooh-ah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now I've been happy lately Thinking about the good things to come And I believe it could be Something good has begun Oh, I've been smiling lately Dreaming about the world as one And I believe it could be Someday it's going to come 'Cause out on the edge of

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the early 1960s, young Black college students conducted sit-ins around America to protest the segregation of restaurants. Ella Baker, a Civil Rights activist and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) official, invited some of those young Black activists (including Diane Nash, Marion Barry, John Lewis, and James Bevel) to a meeting at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina in April of 1960. From that meeting, the group formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). It was made up mostly of Black college students, who practiced peaceful, direct action protests. Ella Baker recommended that the group keep its autonomy and to not affiliate itself with the SCLC or other civil rights groups.

Prominent Members/Events of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee

Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the early 1960s, young Black college students conducted sit-ins around America to protest the segregation of restaurants. Ella Baker, a Civil Rights activist and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) official, invited some of those young Black activists (including Diane Nash, Marion Barry, John Lewis, and James Bevel) to a meeting at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina in April of 1960.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote.
To former abolitionists and to the Radical Republicans in Congress who fashioned Reconstruction after the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, enacted in 1870, appeared to signify the fulfillment of all promises to African Americans. Set free by the 13th amendment, with citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, Black males were given the vote by the 15th Amendment. In retrospect, it can be seen that the 15th Amendment was in reality only another step in the struggle for equality that would continue for more than a century before African Americans could begin to participate fully in American public and civic life.

African Americans exercised the right to vote and held office in many Southern states through the 1880s, but in the early 1890s, steps were taken to ensure subsequent "white supremacy." Literacy tests for the vote, "grandfather clauses" excluding from the franchise all whose ancestors had not voted in the 1860s, and other devices to disenfranchise African Americans were written into the laws of former Confederate states.

Social and economic segregation were added to Black America's loss of political power. In 1896, the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson legalized "separate but equal" facilities for the races. For more than 50 years, the overwhelming majority of African American citizens were reduced to second-class citizenship under the "Jim Crow" segregation system. During that time, African Americans sought to secure their rights and improve their position through organizations such as National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Urban League and through the individual efforts of reformers like Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and A. Philip Randolph.

The most direct attack on the problem of African American disenfranchisement came in 1965. Prompted by reports of continuing discriminatory voting practices in many Southern states, President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself a southerner, urged Congress on March 15, 1965, to pass legislation "which will make it impossible to thwart the 15th Amendment." He reminded Congress that "we cannot have government for all the people until we first make certain it is government of and by all the people."

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, abolished all remaining deterrents to exercising the right to vote and authorized federal supervision of voter registration where necessary. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the act involving federal oversight of voting rules in nine states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, December 7, 1868; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Peace Train" featuring Yusuf / Cat Stevens | Playing For Change | Song Around The World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s a sunny afternoon at the Bronx Zoo, in New York City. A monorail train approaches the elephant exhibit. A child screeches in delight as a female Asian elephant named Happy comes into view. Happy flaps her ears and wraps…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mexican American Migrations and Communities | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What were the experiences of Mexican Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries? What challenges did they face? What communities, institutions, and culture did they create? What records and documents were left of their lives, and what were some reasons for the gaps in the record? There is no single Mexican American story, but rather multiple ones that primary sources can help illuminate.