October 9, 2014 marked the end of an era for Boston’s homeless, ill and marginalized residents when the sole bridge to Long Island was closed after a state inspection declared it too unstable for vehicles. One of several small islands (“Harbor Islands”) of the Massachusetts Bay, Long Island’s geographic separation from the mainland has made it a prime location for isolating social outcasts over the years. In 1882, the City of Boston purchased property on Long Island for an almshouse, a residence for unwed mothers, a chronic disease hospital, a nursing school and a “Home for the Indigent.” In subsequent decades, a treatment center for alcoholics was added. Recently, it’s the site of homeless shelters, Boston Public Health residential facilities and a variety of residential programs for “recovering” addicts and people involved with the Courts.
According to reports in the Boston Globe, the decrepit state of the bridge was well-known to government officials. But it’s been years since the City or State has invested resources in replacing or fundamentally repairing the bridge to the metaphorical “nowhere” of shelters for the homeless and other social undesirables. Reachable only by limited shuttles, Long Island effectively served to keep homeless and sick people out of sight and out of mind for over a century.
“As Profits Roll In, Aetna To Expand On Obamacare Exchange In 2015”
“The Obama administration issued rules to allow for a taxpayer-funded insurer bailout.”
According to Forbes Magazine, health insurance companies have recorded substantial profits in the wake of eight million people signing up for coverage during the first “Obamacare” open enrollment period. That’s great news for stockholders, CEOs, CFOs and a handful of other lucky people. But given that the United States spends more on healthcare while ranking at the bottom of the industrialized world in terms of health outcomes, this isn’t such great news for the rest of us.
A Sociologist’s Thoughts on the “Hobby Lobby” Supreme Court Decision
"One of the greatest tragedies in mankind’s entire history may be that morality was hijacked by religion.” ― Arthur C. Clarke
Introductory college courses on religion typically begin with a unit called “what is religion?” We tell our students right off the bat that there is no natural, universal or inherently true definition of religion. We discuss how some people consider Buddhism to be a religion because Buddhist rituals and symbols “look religious,” but others might say Buddhism is not a religion because there is no formalized notion of god. Some people consider Judaism to be a religion because of the presence of a sacred text and a tradition of attributing rules of behavior to God, but others might say that Judaism is an ethnicity. (Of course, anyone who watches the Daily Show realizes that Jon Stewart is Jewish in the sense that his parents were Jewish and he uses Yiddish slang in his sketches, but he makes it perfectly clear that he does not “believe” in the Bible or observe the laws.)
In contemporary American English we generally use the word “religion” to describe institutions characterized by an organized body of people who posit some sort of God, attribute to that God some sort of moral potency, and conduct rituals that are perceived as having the gravitas of tradition. In other words, we use “religion” in terms that more or less resemble western Christianity.
From the earliest days of European settlement in the Americas there have been heated and often bloody disputes over what counts as religion. European missionaries did not recognize Native American beliefs and practices as “religious.” Rather, they considered them “heathen” which justified forcible conversion and even murder. The beliefs and practices of many 19th and 20th century immigrants were labeled “superstition” which justified national campaigns to re-educate those primitives who insisted on holding onto their old wives’ tales. And in 1993, when the Branch Davidians “cult” in Waco Texas was stormed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the death toll included twenty-five children.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123, Section 35 permits the court to involuntarily commit to an inpatient substance abuse treatment someone whose alcohol or drug use puts themselves or others at risk. Last week the Massachusetts ACLU, together with Prisoners’ Legal Services and the Center for Public Representation, filed a class action suit in US District Court in Boston challenging the constitutionality of sending women committed under Section 35 to state prison.