Articles

Science On The Campaign Trail: See Where The Candidates Stand

Anti-science views are trending in politics—though NASA brings America together

During the 2016 White House Science Fair, Barack Obama looks at the wall where Joey Hudy, 14, shot a marshmallow from the Extreme Marshmallow Cannon he invented. Are the days of the presidential science geek coming to a close?

In the midst of a heated election cycle, let’s take a break for a guessing game. Which political figure said the following?

“It is essential that we recognize science as a many-purpose tool, fully as necessary to human progress as it is to the security of free men. Our nation demands a strong science and a vigorous technology to defend itself, to advance personal liberty, and to raise standards of living.”

Ok, I’ll spare you the suspense: It was Richard Nixon, back in 1960 when he was Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president. Since then, we’ve been to the moon and cured major diseases. We’ve invented the internet, wireless communication, and solar power. In countless labs across the nation, both within universities and the private sector, we’ve developed tools that bring us closer to clean air, water, and energy.

Science used to be non-partisan, but it’s increasingly become politicized. Democrats these days are generally pro-science, and like it or not, most Republicans on the campaign trail have been on the anti- side of the spectrum for quite some time. Yet it was Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency. eagan had a love affair with NASA. Even—get this—George W. Bush believed the science behind global warming.

That’s why it was something of a surprise when Hillary Clinton, in the midst of her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, made a pro-science declaration to rapturous applause. “I believe in science!” she said, followed by an Obamaesque chortle. “I believe that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.

There’s no way this should be a controversial statement, but compared to her challengers for the presidency—Republican nominee Donald Trump and third-partiers Gary Johnson and Jill Stein—Clinton is the only candidate to hold an unequivocal pro-science viewpoint. And while top-line issues like terrorism, economics, immigration, and social justice might grab the headlines, science policy shows how our candidates plan to invest in future solutions while attempting to curb some of America’s excesses.

On Climate Change And The Environment

Hillary Clinton, as forcefully stated in her acceptance speech, is a true believer in climate change. Policy-wise, this means staying the course that President Barack Obama has set: a commitment to dropping emissions 30 percent by 2025 in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Clinton has promised the installation of 500,000 solar panels in her first term, as well as a $60 billion “Clean Energy Challenge,” which encourages state and local communities to adopt solar, wind, and geothermal power in order to cut pollution.

[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]Donald Trump's extreme climate denialism is a marker of how completely outside the mainstream he is on this issue.[/quote]

Donald Trump has repeatedly called Obama’s climate policies “totalitarian.” If there is any concrete part to his science agenda, it’s an anti-Obama renege on the Paris Agreement. The quotes are easy to nitpick, like when Trump claimed global warming was a “hoax created by the Chinese” (he was only joking, though?), but he has repeatedly bashed environmental regulations, going as far as pledging to end the Environmental Protection Agency—a body he incorrectly referred to as the Department Of Environmental while declaring it a “disgrace.” Eliminating the EPA would mean eliminating the Clean Power Plan, which is the basis of America’s strategy to reach the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. Don’t worry, though. The president alone doesn’t have that power.

I asked Seth Stein, national press secretary for the League Of Conservation Voters, if Trump’s stance on climate and environmental science issues was an aberration. “Donald Trump's extreme climate denialism is a marker of how completely outside the mainstream he is on this issue,” he told me. “We've seen more progress on climate change in the last year than we've ever seen before, and voters are looking for a candidate who not only understands that but is ready to meet that issue head on. Trump is going down a path that's been carved out by other deniers before him, but going to a complete extreme.”

Gary Johnson, to the left of Trump here, says global warming is “probably” an issue, but he wants the government to focus on protecting us from its most severe harms rather than coddling lobbyists with empty regulations.

Jill Stein wants to “lead on a global treaty” to halt climate change—a lofty goal, but one that Obama accomplished last year. She’s called her plan a “Green New Deal,” promising a total shift to clean energy by 2030, along with investments in conservation, sustainable agriculture, and public transit systems.

On Research

Hillary Clinton has committed to increase research funding across the board, including budget hikes for the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Donald Trump has no concrete policy on scientific research. He has called the National Institutes Of Health (NIH) “terrible,” as well as showing a healthy disregard for research-based consensus on subjects as disparate as Ebola and wind power. Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, is a notorious opponent of stem cell research. He also once published an article which claimed that smoking “doesn’t kill.” If you’re living an alternate reality where anything is possible, why would we need research?

Gary Johnson, ever the financial stickler, supports research in theory (check out his comments on marijuana research above) but would slash the funds available from the federal government, for example cutting all funding for stem cell research. He believes the private sector, colleges, and nonprofits should contribute a greater percentage of scientific funding to fill the gap.

Jill Stein would redirect military funding toward the research of renewable energy and conservation. Her plan calls for the creation of a “democratically-controlled energy” through the development of an electricity grid which would store power from renewable sources.

On Vaccines

Do vaccines cause autism? Pandering to vocal minorities is a crucial function of American politics, yet the safety of vaccinations has become an unexpected wedge issue in the 2016 election. Clinton is the only candidate who accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence on vaccines. “The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork,” she tweeted last year.

Again, this shouldn’t be a big deal (or even an issue in a national election, really), but Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to adopt an unwavering pro-vax stance. Jill Stein has been in hot water since the convention for her “not all those issues were completely resolved” interview with the Washington Post—though she later clarified her position, and I suppose any water is better than none at all. Gary Johnson hasn’t clarified his stance on vaccinations. He is certainly against mandating them, though.

Which brings us to Donald Trump, a candidate who has maintained a strong anti-vaccination stance even when he’s said he’s for them. “Autism has become an epidemic,” he said in a Republican debate last September. “Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control. I am totally in favor of vaccines, but I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump—I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child.”

On Space

Space brings America together. Did you see that Mad Men episode where they watched the moon landing? Did you not cry? Even Trump isn’t immune to thinking NASA is pretty awesome. “Honestly, I think NASA is wonderful,” he responded to a question on Reddit last week. “America has always led the world in space exploration.”

But in Trumplandia what’s sure as shit one week is the opposite the next. Speaking this past Wednesday in Daytona Beach, about 75 miles from the Kennedy Space Center, the Republican nominee performed a violent about-face. “Look at your space program,” he said. “Look what’s happened with our whole history of space and leadership. Look what’s going on, folks. We’re like a third-world country.”

Clinton, on the other hand, was once rejected by NASA when she asked about becoming an astronaut. (See? She’s always dreamed big!) In 2016, though, it appears she’s all-in on the space program. Gary Johnson, too. Even a libertarian can be tempted by unexplored frontiers, although he would like to reign its budget in.

Jill Stein, though, goes the furthest. In a recent Q&A, she proposed cutting the military budget and giving a chunk of the savings to NASA. “We should be exploring space instead of destroying planet earth,” she wrote. “If we cut the military budget in half, we'll have plenty of money for human needs on earth and the advancement of science and space exploration.”

Articles

14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations

These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.

Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.



This article originally appeared on December 14, 2016.

Articles

Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.

AP Photo/Jessica Hill/The Conversation

Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.

When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.

Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.

In the United States, where some significant portion of the public believes that the government is out to take their guns, the idea that a mass shooting was orchestrated by the government in an attempt to make guns look bad may be appealing both psychologically and ideologically.

Our studies of mass shootings and conspiracy theories help to shed some light on why these events seem particularly prone to the development of such theories and what the media can do to limit the ideas' spread.


Back to the 1990s

Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history. As far back as the mid-1990s, amid a spate of school shootings, Cutting Edge Ministries, a Christian fundamentalist website, found a supposed connection between the attacks and then-President Bill Clinton.

The group's website claimed that when lines were drawn between groups of school-shooting locations across the U.S., they crossed in Hope, Arkansas, Clinton's hometown. The Cutting Edge Ministries concluded from this map that the "shootings were planned events, with the purpose of convincing enough Americans that guns are an evil that needs to be dealt with severely, thus allowing the Federal Government to achieve its Illuminist goal of seizing all weapons."

Beliefs persist today that mass shootings are staged events, complete with "crisis actors," people who are paid to pretend to be victims of a crime or disaster, all as part of a conspiracy by the government to take away people's guns. The idea has been linked to such tragedies as the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the Sandy Hook Elementary attack that resulted in the deaths of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

These beliefs can become widespread when peddled by prominent people. U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been in the news recently because of her belief that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag," an event that was disguised to look like another group was responsible. It's not clear, though, in this instance who Rep. Greene felt was really to blame.

Conservative personality Alex Jones recently failed to persuade the Texas Supreme Court to dismiss defamation and injury lawsuits against him by parents of children who were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Jones has, for years, claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't happen, saying "the whole thing was fake," and alleging it happened at the behest of gun-control groups and complicit media outlets.

After the country's deadliest mass shooting to date, with 59 dead and hundreds injured in Las Vegas in 2017, the pattern continued: A conspiracy theory arose that there were multiple shooters, and the notion that the shooting was really done for some other purpose than mass murder.

images.theconversation.com

Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Making sense of the senseless

These conspiracy theories are all attempts to make sense of incomprehensibly terrifying events. If a lone shooter, with no clear motive, can singlehandedly take the lives of 60 individuals, while injuring hundreds more, then is anyone really safe?

Conspiracy theories are a way of understanding information. Historian Richard Hofstadter has indicated they can provide motives for events that defy explanation. Mass shootings, then, create an opportunity for people to believe there are larger forces at play, or an ultimate cause that explains the event.

For instance, an idea that a shooter was driven mad by antipsychoticdrugs, distributed by the pharmaceutical industry, can provide comfort as opposed to the thought that anyone can be a victim or perpetrator.

Polls have shown that people worry a lot about mass shootings, and more than 30% of Americans said in 2019 that they refused to go particular places such as public events or the mall for fear of being shot.

If the shootings are staged, or the results of an enormous, unknowable or mysterious effort, then they at least becomes somewhat comprehensible. That thought process satisfies the search for a reason that can help people feel more comfort and security in a complex and uncertain world – especially when the reason found either removes the threat or makes it somehow less random.

Some people blame mass shootings on other factors like mental illness that make gun violence an individual issue, not a societal one, or say these events are somehow explained by outside forces. These ideas may seem implausible to most, but they do what conspiracy theories are intended to do: provide people with a sense of knowing and control.

Conspiracy theories have consequences

Conspiracy theories can spark real-world threats – including the QAnon-inspired attack on a pizza restaurant in 2016 and the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.

They also misdirect blame and distract from efforts to better understand tragedies such as mass shootings. High-quality scholarship could investigate how to better protect public places. But robust debates about how to reduce events such as mass shootings will be less effective if some significant portion of the public believes they are manufactured.

Some journalists and news organizations have already started taking steps to identify and warn audiences against conspiracy theories. Open access to reputable news sources on COVID-19, for example, has helped manage the misinformation of coronavirus conspiracies.

Explicit and clear evaluation of evidence and sources – in headlines and TV subtitles – have helped keep news consumers alert. And pop-up prompts from Twitter and Facebook encourage users to read articles before reposting.

These steps can work, as shown by the substantial drop in misinformation on Twitter following former President Donald Trump's removal from the platform.

Mass shootings may be good fodder for conspiracy theories, but that does not mean people should actually consume such ideas without necessary context or disclaimers.

Michael Rocque is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Bates College.

Stephanie Kelley-Romano is an Associate Professor of Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies at Bates College


This article first appeared on The Conversation on 02.20.21.. You can read it here.

Between the bras, makeup, periods, catcalling, sexism, impossible-to-attain beauty standards, and heels, most men wouldn't survive being a woman for a day without having a complete mental breakdown. So here's a slideshow of some of the funniest Tumblr posts about the everyday struggles that women face that men would never understand.

All photos courtesy of Tumblr.




This article originally appeared on 01.09.16



Articles

Cancel all coal projects to have 'fighting chance' against climate crisis, says UN Chief

"Phasing out coal from the electricity sector is the single most important step to get in line with the 1.5 degree goal."

Photo from Pixabay.
A coal power plant.

This article originally appeared on Common Dreams on 3.3.21. You can read it here.



Emphasizing that the world still has a "fighting chance" to limit global warming with immediate and ambitious climate action, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Tuesday urged governments and the private sector to cancel all planned coal projects, cease financing for coal-fired power plants, and opt instead to support a just transition by investing in renewable energy.

"Once upon a time, coal brought cheap electricity to entire regions and vital jobs to communities," Guterres said in a video message at the virtual meeting of the Powering Past Coal Alliance. "Those days are gone."

"Phasing out coal from the electricity sector is the single most important step to get in line with the 1.5 degree goal," Guterres continued, referring to the policy objective of preventing planetary temperatures from rising more than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. "Global coal use in electricity generation must fall by 80% below 2010 levels by 2030," he added.

Meeting the 1.5 °C climate target over the course of this decade is possible, according to Guterres, but will require eliminating "the dirtiest, most polluting and, yes, more and more costly fossil fuel from our power sectors."

twitter.com

None

In his address, the U.N. chief outlined three steps that must be taken by public authorities as well as companies to "end the deadly addiction to coal."

  • Cancel all global coal projects in the pipeline;
  • End the international financing of coal plants and shift investment to renewable energy projects; and
  • Jump-start a global effort to finally organize a just transition.

Guterres called on the 37 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—a group of relatively rich countries with a greater historical responsibility for extracting fossil fuels and emitting the greenhouse gasses that are causing deadly pollution and destroying the climate—to "commit to phasing out coal" by 2030, while urging non-OECD countries to do so by 2040.

Pleading for an end to the global bankrolling of coal projects and a move toward supporting developing countries in transitioning to clean energy, Guterres asked "all multilateral and public banks—as well as investors in commercial banks or pension funds—to shift their investments now in the new economy of renewable energy."

While stressing that "the transition from coal to renewable[s] will result in the net creation of millions of jobs by 2030," Guterres acknowledged that "the impact on regional and local levels will be varied."

"We have a collective and urgent responsibility to address the serious challenges that come with the speed and scale of the transition," he continued. "The needs of coal communities must be recognized, and concrete solutions must be provided at a very local level."

The U.N. chief urged "all countries to embrace the International Labor Organization's guidelines for a just transition and adopt them as minimum standard to ensure progress on decent work for all."

The coronavirus pandemic, Guterres noted, has "accelerated" the decline in "coal's economic viability," while recovery plans provide an opportunity to bring about a green transformation of the world's infrastructure.

In many parts of the world, a just transition dovetails with guaranteeing universal access to energy, said Damilola Ogunbiyi, CEO and special representative of the secretary-general for Sustainable Energy for All.

Ogunbiyi told conference attendees that almost 800 million people worldwide still lack access to basic electricity, while 2.8 billion are without clean cooking fuels.

"Right now, we're at a crossroads where people do want to recover better, but they are looking for the best opportunities to do that," she said. "And we're emphasizing investments in sustainable energy to spur economic development, create new jobs, and give opportunities to fulfill the full potential."

Articles

Satanists put up a billboard in Florida promoting state's abortion law loophole

Another surprising act of public service from the Satanic Temple.

via The Satanic Temple / Twitter

Unexpected acts of public service.

This article originally appeared on 12.30.20.



In some states, women are put through humiliating and dangerous pre-abortion medical consultations and waiting periods before being allowed to undergo the procedure. In four states, women are even forced to bury or cremate the fetal remains after the procedure.

These government-mandated roadblocks and punitive shaming serve no purpose but to make it more difficult, emotionally damaging, and expensive for women to have an abortion.

Eighteen states currently have laws that force women to delay their abortions unnecessarily: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In a number of other states, mandatory-delay laws have been enacted but are enjoined or otherwise unenforced.

To help women get around these burdensome regulations, The Satanic Temple is promoting a religious ritual it believes provides an exemption from restrictions. According to the Temple, the ritual is supported by the federal Religious Freedoms Restoration Act.

GIF from media3.giphy.com.

Pentagram GIF

The Temple is a religious organization that claims it doesn't believe "in the existence of Satan or the supernatural" but that "religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition."

The Temple says its exemption is made possible by a precedent set by the Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision. According to the Temple, it prevents the government from putting a "burden on free exercise of religion without a compelling reason."

Ironically, Hobby Lobby's case claimed that providing insurance coverage for birth control conflicted with the employer's Christian faith. The Satanic Temple argues that unnecessary roadblocks to abortion conflict with theirs.

via The Satanic Temple

Religious freedoms.

The Temple is promoting the ritual on I-95 billboards in Florida where women must endure an ultrasound and go through pre-procedure, anti-choice counseling before having an abortion.

The Temple's billboards inform women that they can circumvent the restrictions by simply citing a Satanic ritual.

"Susan, you're telling me I do not have to endure a waiting period when I have an abortion?" one of the women on the billboard says.

"That's true if you're a SATANIST!" the other replies.

Next to the ladies is a symbol of a goat head in a pentagram and a message about the ritual.

via The Satanic Temple

Image of The Satanic Temple billboard.

The Temple also provides a letter that women seeking abortions can provide to medical staff. It explains the ritual and why it exempts them from obligations that are an undue burden to their religious practice.

The Temple believes that some medical practitioners may reject its requests. However, it believes that doing so is a violation of religious freedom and it will take legal action if necessary.

"It would be unconstitutional to require a waiting period before receiving holy communion," the temple says in a video. "It would be illegal to demand Muslims receive counseling prior to Ramadan. It would be ridiculous to demand that Christians affirm in writing the unscientific assertion that baptism can cause brain cancers."

"So we expect the same rights as any other religious organization," the video says.

youtu.be

The Satanic Temple’s Religious Abortion Ritual

To perform the ritual, a woman looks into a mirror to affirm their personhood and responsibility to herself. Once the woman is focused and comfortable, they are to recite two of the Temple's Seven Tenets.

Tenet III: One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.

Tenet V. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

Then they are to recite a personal affirmation: "By my body, my blood. Then by my will, it is done."

The ritual affirms The Temple's belief in personal responsibility and liberty that, coincidentally, mirror that of the U.S. Constitution.

"Satan is a symbol of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty even in the face of insurmountable odds," the Temple's website reads.

Hail Satan!

There are two types of people in this world – those who panic and fill up their cars with gas when the needle hits 25% or so, and people like me who wait until the gas light comes on, then check the odometer so you can drive the entire 30 miles to absolute empty before coasting into a gas station on fumes.

I mean…it's not empty until it's empty, right?

But just how far can you drive your car once that gas light comes on? Should you trust your manual?

Photo from Pixabay.

I believe that reads empty.

Now, thanks to Your Mechanic sharing this information in a recent post, you can know for sure. Of course, they also want to warn you that driving on a low fuel level or running out of gas can actually damage your car.

Proceed at your own risk.

Graph from Your Mechanic.

How far you can go on empty.

Here's a link to a larger version of the chart.

Now, thanks to Your Mechanic sharing this information in a recent post, you can know for sure. Of course, they also want to warn you that driving on a low fuel level or running out of gas can actually damage your car.

Proceed at your own risk.

These are, of course, approximations that depend on several factors, including how you drive, your car's condition, etc. So don't automatically blame your mechanic if you find yourself stranded on the side of the road.


This article originally appeared on 06.25.21.

Articles

19 countries photoshopped one man to fit their idea of the perfect body

Beauty is in the eye of the photoshopper.

If you ask people what they think the “perfect" body looks like, you're sure to get a range of answers, depending on where the person is from. Last year, Superdrug Online Doctor created a project, “Perceptions of Perfection" that showed what people in 18 countries think the “perfect" woman looks like. The project was a viral hit.

They've recently released the male version.

This time, they asked graphic designers—11 women and eight men—in 19 countries to photoshop the same image to highlight the male beauty standards for their country.

Some of the images are certainly amusing, but the collective result is an interesting look at what people find attractive around the world.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection"

The original photo.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for U.K.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Venezuela.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for South Africa.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Spain.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Serbia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Portugal.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Macedonia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Nigeria.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Indonesia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Pakistan.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Bangladesh.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for China.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Colombia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Croatia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Russia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Australia.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for United States.

Image from “Perceptions of Perfection”.

Photoshopped for Egypt.


This article originally appeared on 09.14.17

Articles

A viral Twitter thread about body autonomy is a reminder of the ‘fear’ and ‘shame’ women still are forced to confront.

Body autonomy means that a person has the right to whatever they want with their own body.

Body autonomy means a person has the right to whatever they want with their own body.

We live in a world where people are constantly telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies. Women get it form all sides — Washington, their churches, family members, and even doctors.

A woman on Twitter who goes by the name Salome Strangelove recently went viral for discussing the importance of female body autonomy.

Here's how it started.

twitter.com

None

She continued talking about how her mother had a difficult pregnancy.

twitter.com

None

Her mother asked her doctor about the possibility of sterilization.

twitter.com

None

As was typical of the times, she was chastised by her male, Catholic doctor.

twitter.com

None

Her mother was made to feel guilty about simply exploring the medical options about her own body. But later on, a new doctor made her feel more comfortable about her situation.

None

twitter.com

None

None

twitter.com

None

None

twitter.com

None

None

twitter.com

None

None

twitter.com

None

Once her mother had the courage to speak up, her own family members supported her.

None

twitter.com

None

twitter.com

None

Amen.


This article originally appeared on 6.20.21.