Its scary how the religious right is trying to undermine our constitution. Frank Schaeffer talks about how helped the GOP start their war on the public schools, before he saw the light.

(Credit: ehrlif via Shutterstock)

As someone who participated in the rise of the religious right in the 1970s and 1980s, I can tell you that you can’t understand the modern Republican Party and its hatred of government unless you understand the evangelical home-school movement. Nor can the Democrats hope to defeat the GOP in 2016 unless they grasp what I’ll be explaining here: religious war carried on by other means.

The Christian home-school movement drove the Evangelical school movement to the ever-harsher world-rejecting far right. The movement saw itself as separating from evil “secular” America. Therein lies the heart of the Tea Party, GOP and religious right’s paranoid view of the rest of us. And since my late father and evangelist Francis Schaeffer and I were instrumental in starting the religious right — I have since left the movement and recently wrote a book titled “Why I Am an Atheist who Believes in God: How to Give Love, Create Beauty and Find Peace” - believe me when I tell you that the evangelical schools and home school movement were, by design, founded to undermine a secular and free vision of America and replace it by stealth with a form of theocracy.

Read more at Salon

I’d never heard of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) until about an hour ago when a book on Amazon with an unusual title (Islam Is a Foreign Country) piqued my interest. It just so happened that its author, Zareena Grewal, turned out to be the (former) director of the Center, so I went looking to see who they were. Here’s what I found:

About ISPU

ISPU is an independent, nonpartisan think tank and research organization committed to conducting objective, empirical research and offering expert policy analysis on some of the most pressing issues facing the United States. These issues include U.S. foreign policy, national security, the economy, and public health. In addition, ISPU has assembled leading experts across multiple disciplines and built a solid reputation as a trusted source for information about American Muslims and Muslim communities around the world. […]

More: ISPU - Who We Are

I also checked out the site to see who was on their Board of Directors, Board of Advisors, staff, and scholars (under Experts). Yes, I’m very cautious these days because there are too many so-called “scholars” and “specialists” who are little more than paid hacks of the Islamophobia industry. Then there are the Muslim concern trolls who only ever show up on Fox News & CNN (especially after terrorist attacks or when they’re hawking one of their books) or who are hired by right-wing outfits like the Gatestone Institute, where they rub shoulders with some of the worst, most hateful anti-Muslim mouthpieces.

There are also some rather extreme Muslims out there, so there’s the concern about anyone known for their antisemitic views. I didn’t see any names that set off alarms, and the article “Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia Surge in Europe” put my mind at rest on that particular matter.

I found their Islamophobia: A Threat to All page especially interesting as it offers three research publications for download. Towards the bottom of the page, under the heading “Existing ISPU Research on Islamophobia”, it also provides PDFs of some (slightly) older, but still very relevant topics.

The Issues section covers such topics as American Muslims, European Muslims. the Middle East, South Asia, US Politics, National Security, the Economy, Public Health, and of course there’s a 9/11 Series.

Last but not least, is the Publications section. There, in addition to the first volume of ISPU Insights (a biannual publication that highlights things they’ve been working on throughout the year), you’ll find sections for Reports. Policy Briefs, Articles and Books.

It was under Policy Briefs that I found the PDF below, which this Page takes its title from and which I thought might be of particular interest to quite a few of you here. The author, Asifa Quraishi-Landes, does a great job of articulating what Sharia is (and isn’t) as well as explaining what’s required in terms of scholarship for reform to happen that will be accepted by most Muslims (i.e. the mainstream, not the far-left progressives who are much smaller in number and tend to lack the gravitas and credibility—in an Islamic context—required for them to be considered a serious catalyst for change).

I think most of you will find the ISPU website to be a very useful resource when struggling to understand certain aspects of Islam and the Muslim worldview. Sure, there is a shared foundation, but there are many other factors that influence that worldview: where one was raised/lives, whether one was born into a Muslim family or is a convert (most of whose immediate family members are probably not Muslim), why and at what point in life one converted, not to mention one’s socioeconomic background, education level, individual personality, etc.

Alright, I’ll stop yakking now and let you move on to reading the PDF and/or exploring the website (I’ve only barely scratched the surface myself—there’s a LOT of info there). Hope this helps a little.

I forgot to post this link earlier this week. Its a webcomic I wanted to upload, but it exceeded the 500k limit. That’s because the artist went all out on this episode with two huge full color panels, only to set-up a joke in the third b&w panel. So I had to settle for sharing the link alone. (because I’ve never done that before ;)

sandraandwoo.com

Off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure this series is technically SFW. However, the humor is not always for “all” audiences. I’d say roughly pg-13-ish give-or-take. This particular episode I’ve linked to is just politics though. I recommend seeing at least this one.

The developments in Israel’s internal political drama have reached a new high today, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has essentially set in motion the end of the current government and paved the road for elections in 2015:

Ynet: PM Netanyahu Fires Senior Ministers Lapid, Livni

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided Tuesday to fire Yesh Atid leader Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Hatnua leader Justice Minister Tzipi Livni.

Netanyahu instructed Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mandelblit on Tuesday evening to issue termination letters to the two senior ministers, citing constant criticism aimed at him and his government from both Livni and Lapid.

“In recent weeks, including the last 24 hours, Ministers Lapid and Livni harshly attacked the government I’m heading.

I won’t tolerate any more opposition within the government, I won’t tolerate ministers attacking from within the government the government’s policies and its leader,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu has just called for the Knesset’s dissolution as soon as possible “so that we can head to elections and get a clear mandate from the people to lead the country”.

Update: A motion to dismiss the Knesset has been scheduled for tomorrow (3/12), after which Israeli elections will officially be on their way.

A bit of commentary:
Netanyahu’s decision to fire the senior ministers is apparently unprecedented, and there hasn’t been a political eruption of this magnitude in Israel in many years, perhaps even decades.

Both Livni and Lapid are heads of political parties and partners in the Israeli government’s Coalition of parties. While Livni’s Hatnuah (The Movement) party is small, Lapid’s Yesh Atid (There’s a Future) party was voted the second largest political party in the 2013 elections, coming in second after Netanyahu’s Likud Beitenu party - a coalition between the Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu (“Israel is Our Home”) headed by Avigdor Liberman, a long-time partner of Netanyahu.

As it seems now, the firing of both senior ministers is seems to be nothing short of a death sentence for any cooperation between the previously reluctant political partners. Lapid’s centralist party joined with Netanyahu’s right-wing party after the 2013 elections, amid considerable complaints from voters who wanted Lapid to work with the Labor party (which refused to join a Netanyahu administration and remained in the Knesset opposition).

The recent turmoil has been the result of Netanyahu (and the Likud’s) opposition to several laws aimed at improving the conditions of the Israeli middle and low classes - the platform on which Lapid’s movement ran its entire election campaign. Despite an overall sense of dissatisfaction with Lapid, the majority of Israel’s population supports the efforts he’s proposed, especially one known as the ‘Zero VAT’ law, a housing bill aimed at making it easier for families to purchase houses and apartments (a major social issue in Israel, where real estates costs have risen nation-wide and construction opportunities have been insufficient). Netanyahu, it seems, wanted the popular proposal gutted - which based on surveys would have consigned Lapid’s entire party to an early grave in future elections.

If in fact the passing of the Zero VAT law has been culled due to this decision, it may end up resulting in public backlash directed at Netanyahu; This could spell trouble in coming elections, made considerably worse by the fact that the elections will may also feature the end of the Likud/Yisrael Beitenu coalition (which played a crucial role in Netanyahu’s 2013 victory).

Yep, the Okie from Muskogee guy. Right wing freakout any moment now.

After being honored at the White House for his lifetime achievements in the performing arts and outstanding contributions to American culture, Merle Haggard is forming an opinion about President Barack Obama based on character, not political agenda. The 73-year-old country legend, who has actually visited the White House as a guest of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in years past, made an appearance in Washington D.C. for the 33rd Annual Kennedy Center Honors. While there, he mingled with the President, the President’s wife and several other notable honorees.

“It was also nice to meet Obama and find him very different from the media makeout. It’s really almost criminal what they [the media] do with our President,” Haggard tells Rolling Stone. “There seems to be no shame or anything. They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he’s doing certain things that he’s not. It’s just a big old political game that I don’t want to be part of. There are people spending their lives putting him down.”

More: Merle Haggard: ‘It’s Criminal What They Do to Our President’

How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

There are a bunch of horror stories like this of women with absolutely no intention of aborting their pregnancy being arrested/detained/forced to give birth via cesarean. All in the name of personhood.

These are not isolated or rare cases. Last year, we published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. In a majority of these cases, women who had no intention of ending a pregnancy went to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. This includes the many cases where the pregnant woman was alleged to have used some amount of alcohol or a criminalized drug.

Since 2005, we have identified an additional 380 cases, with more arrests occurring every week. This significant increase coincides with what the Guttmacher Institute describes as a “seismic shift” in the number of states with laws hostile to abortion rights.

Read the whole article at NYTimes.com

Mark Strauss debunks some serious right wing, anti government, anti science, nonsense.

Over the last five years, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has published an annual Wastebook, documenting what he considers the 100 most wasteful federal projects. This year he got a lot of media mileage by ridiculing several science grants—which, in fact, were among the cheapest and most worthwhile projects on his hit list.

Coburn and his staff spend time every year ferreting out which research projects will sound the most ludicrous. Their descriptions include enough accurate information so that they can’t be characterized as lies.

But they leave out so many facts that they can’t be characterized as truth, either.

Nonetheless, media outlets got a good laugh by parroting the talking points, without putting any effort into looking at whether any of these projects were more than they seemed. Coburn’s Wastebook often didn’t provide any specific critiques, beyond bad puns about government waste.

Normally, I’d shrug it off as just more spin. But, the Wastebook got a lot of publicity at a time when Congressional Republicans have made science grants the scapegoats for out-of-control government spending—when, in fact, they represent barely a fraction of the billions of dollars spent on projects that actually need oversight.

So, here are some fixes in the Wastebook, by providing actual information on three of the science grants that got a lot of attention.

Read more at Io9

People who know me know I am usually pretty calm and not prone to go on Howard Beale-esque rants about how crooked and nasty politics can be.

But after what happened this Nov. 4 I can no longer sit idly by. This years midterm elections were an appalling travesty on multiple levels. It’s not just the results themselves that upset me, but the fact those results were evocative of a hopelessly broken elitist political machine that has done little good and plenty of harm to the so-called “Greatest Country in The World” for far too long now.

It might be easy for you to sit back and dismiss my views because I am an immigrant and not a true, full blooded American but the fact is, I’ve been here for 7 years and I’ll be here for the foreseeable future. This is as much my country as it is yours and I have every right to be concerned about the direction in which it’s headed.

That said, let me break down point by point why I really hate American politics today.

The Two Party System

Because of how the American political machine is constructed, there are really only two viable parties. The Democratic and The Republican. It’s probably more difficult in the United States than any other developed country in the world to get elected as a 3rd Party candidate. Oh sure, every so often an Independent will make a few waves and win a seat or two but we have never had any viable 3rd parties in this country compared to Canada and most European nations.

Politicians and voters are expected to come down on one side or the other, with virtually no room for a middle ground. That’s not a recipe for prosperity.

Hyper partisanship/Go Team Go!

Politics should never be framed as a battle of Good vs. Evil, rather it should be more like Good vs. Good. Republicans and Democrats alike should be concerned with the well being of all Americans. Compromise should be the norm, not the exception to the rule.

When one party demonizes the other and forces people to choose sides like it’s some kind of war, nothing constructive comes of it whatsoever. And when I say nothing constructive I mean nothing legislatively. How can you be expected to compromise with the guy across the table when you utterly despise him?

Hyper partisanship means that, based on our beliefs, we are all labeled as either “Liberal” or “Conservative” and instantly profiled. That is to say that, if my views mark me as a Liberal, I instantly become not only a Liberal, but a tree hugging communist who never expects anyone to work hard for their money, smokes pot and listens to weird New Age music. If my views identify me as Conservative I am now a racist, homophobic, religious, Neo confederate redneck who loves me some guns.

Of course Americans are a diverse people and it’s absolutely ridiculous to, in the face of such diversity, adopt such a black and white approach to how people think and feel about the world.

Mid-term elections

I’ve never understood why these are necessary. They do nothing but undermine the Presidency and create legislative gridlock. Consider Obama’s Presidency:

2008-2010: Democrats control the House and Senate
2010-2014: Republicans control the House, Democrats control the Senate
2014-2016: Republicans control the House and Senate

That means that, out of an eight year, two term Presidency Obama only gets about two years to constructively get anything done. A GOP house isn’t going to do much for him and a GOP Senate on top of that now means he’s practically reduced to President-in-name-only because he might as well be powerless.

In Canada, we have an election and whoever we choose to elect gets a full four years at the helm. Now of course depending on how things go that means it can either be four hurtful years or four helpful years but regardless, it gives the ruling party time to actually enact legislation rather than be tied up in endless gridlock.

Changing things up every two years to me seems a far more costly and far less effective form of governance. How can we expect a President to effectively achieve his legislative goals if the legislature is constantly changing? It’s like if a caddie kept swapping clubs out of his golfers bag every few holes and still expected him to shoot a 67.

Perpetual Campaigning

Not only do we have midterms every two years, but the Presidential elections are every four. I know this scheduling is written right in to the Constitution and will probably never be changed, but I still dislike it.

Having more elections and firmly scheduled elections means that politicians are constantly campaigning and never governing. An article I read a couple of days ago said that given the current political climate the 2016 Presidential campaign begins on Nov. 5, 2014.

I find that campaign timeframes in America are ridiculously long. I’ve previously stated that, in Canada, the law allows for a MAXIMUM of I think 60 days between when an election is called and when the vote is held. That means Canadian politicians spend a lot more time working and a lot less time (and money) campaigning.

Negativity

This is, of course, not exclusive to America. Attack ads have been part of the political game for close to 30 years now. I find though, that since the election of Barack Obama, the amount of negative campaigning and attack ads and just plain dirty politics has increased exponentially.

I’m sure we all remember the person who snuck into a nursing home and took pictures of Thad Cochran’s ill wife during the Mississippi GOP primary. It’s bothered me for years now how much politics has become more about trashing the other guy than championing your own positions.

Sadly, I don’t see this trend changing anytime soon.

Citizens United

Of course, I saved the Worst for last.

I firmly believe that nothing. NOTHING has been more damaging to American politics than the Citizens United decision. Because of this, the power of government has been definitively and permanently handed over not to the American people but to the Corporations and special interest groups who are now free to spend Billions of dollars annually on politics and politicians.

What tiny bit of power the little guy had left is gone forever. Politics isn’t for you and me anymore. It’s for Company Presidents and Directors of the Board. It’s for Bankers and Investors. It’s for Real Estate Moguls and Sports Agents. It’s for “Think Tanks” and Advocacy groups.

The entire power of the U.S. political system has been given, on a silver platter even, to a very elite and very moneyed group of people who will not hesitate to use that power to further their own ends at the expense of everything and everyone else.

Now it might be easy to read all this and assume that I hate America.

But I don’t.

I want nothing more than to see growth, prosperity and liberty for ALL Americans.

I love this country. I love what America has traditionally stood for.

What I hate is what has happened to this country and how what should be the finest example of democracy in the world has turned into a crooked, corrupted, distorted cash filled trash heap with little hopes of being cleaned up anytime soon.

At the beginning of this essay I referred to Howard Beale. I think it’s safe to say given the state of politics in this country today, there’s plenty of Americans out there who have every right to be and indeed ought to be Mad as Hell.

Nativists and Anti Muslim bigots are determined to bend the government to their will for “the good” of America. No surprise these people haven’t given up yet. Hopefully they’ll be made irrelevant within our lifetime.

Protesters at an Oct. 25 event in Arnold, Missouri. (via Facebook)

Recently, Imagine2050 has reported on anti-immigrant activists seeking to make immigration a top priority for voters in the upcoming midterm elections. Similar to this, members of the organized Islamophobia movement have recently sought to inject more anti-immigrant arguments into their overall agenda.

This recent uptick in rhetoric surrounding immigration and border enforcement has come from key figures and organizations in the anti-Muslim movement. Within this framework, these voices have called for curbing relief for undocumented immigrants and for a militarizing of our southern border: All supposedly in the name of national security.

The crossover between anti-Muslim figureheads and anti-immigrant sentiment is increasingly prevalent. Although the anti-Muslim contingent frames border security as a way deter terrorists, their messaging mirrors old-school nativist rhetoric as they aim to uphold policies that harm a broader spectrum of communities.

Below are three examples that highlight this crossover.

Read more at Imagine2050

Andre Aggasi was once the spokesperson for Canon cameras. The tag line was “Image is Everything”.

That applies to politics as much as it does to cameras and photography.

Two politicians who take that to heart more than most are Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York. Both have presidential aspirations, and both appear to be using the current medical crisis in Africa (and its spillover effect locally) to distinguish themselves from other prospective and actual candidates for president.

Both are governors of states whose main airports are international gateways and are two of the five airports through which 94% of all passengers from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea travel. And both initially sought mandatory 21 day quarantines for medical personnel who are returning from working with Ebola patients.

Since Dr. Craig Spencer self-reported that he had a fever and the NYPD/FDNY took the necessary precautions that he might have Ebola (since confirmed), the governors have engaged in a shifting policy battle about who and when someone will be quarantined.

Both governors have shifted their stances in public pronouncements. First they both indicated a blanket mandatory quarantine, which later shifted to self-reporting, though Gov. Christie denies that he modified his position. That’s blatantly false. Josh Marshall points out the pretzel spin and logic of Gov. Christie:

In Florida yesterday, Christie was asked why he’d shifted his policy in releasing Nurse Kaci Hickox and allowing her to return to Maine. His answers were simply false on two counts. First he said that she’d been symptomatic for Ebola and was running a fever. Neither appears to be true.

According to her undisputed account, she was briefly shown to have a fever using a forehead strip thermometer which showed a slight fever, apparently because she was upset and stressed. Whatever the reason, a subsequent oral thermometer reading showed no fever. That almost certainly means she never had a fever. Nor has there been any suggestion that she had any symptoms of Ebola. So Christie’s claim that she was symptomatic for Ebola, but then saw her symptoms go away, is just false.

When asked if he’d reversed his decision, Christie denied any change in policy and said she would only have been forced to remain in isolation, “if she continued to be ill. She hadn’t had any symptoms for 24 hours and she tested negative for Ebola. The reason she was put in the hospital in the first place was because she was running a high fever and she was symptomatic … The minute she was no longer symptomatic she was released.” (emphasis added)

Again, based on everything we know about Hickox’s care, this is false. She was never symptomatic for Ebola and she never had a fever with the exception of one reading which was apparently contradicted a short time later by a more accurate test.

Nor was there any need for her to be symptomatic under the policy that the two Governors announced. The explicitly and expressed goal of the policy was not to hold people who were symptomatic but to hold everyone who’d treated Ebola patients in West Africa in isolation for 21 days in case they became symptomatic. Again, these are Cuomo’s and Christie’s own words.

So Christie is not only lying about the specifics of Hickox case he’s also claiming the policy says something different from what he said it was when he announced it.

Marshall further points out that it seems that both governors are pushing health policies that appear without any consultation with actual health experts. I wonder just who exactly is behind Christie’s policy here - especially since he took great pains to announce and identify an Ebola team that included top health officials in the state. Did they have a say in the policy, and what was their basis in medical and health policy? So far, they haven’t been heard from since Christie spoke.

And yes, I’ve seen the nj.com report that a Nobel prize winner in Medicine seems to support a quarantine for medical workers, though he (or perhaps it is the report itself) that seems to ignore that there are symptoms other than fever that can indicate that the person is symptomatic with Ebola. The doctor notes that there is a percentage of people who never show a fever but are symptomatic with Ebola. Omitted from the report is the bit about how there are other symptoms that include fatigue, weakness, etc.

That’s why the fever indicator isn’t a good indicator of whether someone has Ebola - there are undercounts (persons never show fever, but are symptomatic in other ways), or overcounts (person has fever from unrelated condition).

Christie instead pushed for and got a political solution to a medical issue, and says that he’s not changed his position, even though he had called for a medical quarantine in medical facilities, but changed that tune to allow the nurse to self-quarantine at home in Maine instead.

Christie and others have pointed to the medical correspondent from NBC News as proof that a voluntary quarantine isn’t enough. People should minimize contacts where possible, but if they’re not symptomatic, then they aren’t going to spread the disease. The guidance is to check for symptoms regularly and to check in with health authorities at the slightest change in condition.

To date, there have been far more false positives - those who were taken to facilities with suspected cases that were later ruled out (such as the five-year-old in NYC that was suspected of having Ebola but was found to have a respiratory ailment instead), than false negatives - such as where someone got Ebola from unannounced cases that came into the country and spread from other as yet unidentified sources.

Moreover, is Gov. Christie imposing quarantines on any of those health workers at Bellevue who live in NJ and are working in direct contact with Dr. Spencer? After all, they’re at risk of contracting the disease and spreading - without going to the epicenter of the epidemic in West Africa. Somehow, I doubt he’d have much success with that - and spin furiously to distinguish the two.

Since writing this yesterday, the confusion over exactly what New Jersey is doing has only grown. Despite the governor saying that they haven’t changed their policy since announcing it over the weekend, it’s not clear what even that policy is and who’s formulating it.

That contrasts with the NY policy, which clearly spells out what people should do.

Yet four days after he and the governor of New York announced the 21-day quarantine for high-risk travelers, neither Christie nor state health officials have offered details about how this will be accomplished.

If people are quarantined at home, can their families stay with them and still go out? If they are alone at home, is someone going to bring them food? What about high-risk travelers who are passing through the airport in Newark — should they be allowed to continue to their destination?

Those and many other questions remain unanswered — Christie officials said specifics about how the mandate will be enforced are “internal documents” and are not public.

What’s more, some of the agencies that are supposed to be enforcing the plan say they are uncertain about protocols because no policies have been presented. There is growing frustration, officials said. The Port Authority, for instance, had received no guidance from New Jersey health officials about the state’s Ebola response protocol as of Tuesday afternoon, a person familiar with airport operations said.

“Clarity would be incredibly helpful,” said the person, who requested anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak about the protocols.

In contrast, New York health officials circulated guidelines for screening at JFK International Airport on Tuesday, in a document that stresses “a respectful and supportive approach” to implementing the quarantine rules. It provides steps for agencies to follow to determine who should be quarantined, where they will stay and even how they will be transported.

And that they haven’t made it public also adds to the legal woes facing the state for trying to enforce a policy that appears to be thrown together with no actual input from health officials or legal staff, despite the Governor putting together a committee that has both health and legal officials involved.

The way New Jersey is going about this quarantine isn’t going to pass legal muster, because those rules should be available and distributed to all relevant agencies and departments so that there’s uniform understanding of what they are. Rather, the governor is going to approach this ad hoc. That’s no way to run things.

Elsewhere, a Connecticut family has filed suit after their child was told to stay home from school over Ebola fears. The family recently returned from a trip to Africa, but had not traveled to one of the three countries struggling with the current outbreak. They had visited Nigeria, which managed to stop a cluster of cases in Lagos several weeks ago. They have been outbreak free since then.

But it points to the ludicrous lengths to which some people will deny access on account of Ebola. People, including politicians, seem to have no idea of the geography involved, or that there are separate countries involved in this outbreak. Others think that all of Africa is somehow affected, even though it’s a tiny portion of a continent with more than one billion people living there.