Daily Archives: March 4, 2017

Sex, Gene Editing, And Electronic Dance Music: How To Teach Entrepreneurship In Biotechnology Part 1 – Forbes

Posted: March 4, 2017 at 2:44 pm


Forbes
Sex, Gene Editing, And Electronic Dance Music: How To Teach Entrepreneurship In Biotechnology Part 1
Forbes
Next: a recent piece by Derek Lowe on the failure of Merck's BACE inhibitor for Alzheimer's, and last week I told the students to read up on and be prepared to venture pitch Editas Medicine (EDIT). During sessions 5 and 6, none of the assignments was ...

See more here:
Sex, Gene Editing, And Electronic Dance Music: How To Teach Entrepreneurship In Biotechnology Part 1 - Forbes

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on Sex, Gene Editing, And Electronic Dance Music: How To Teach Entrepreneurship In Biotechnology Part 1 – Forbes

Why Indian Censorship Is Hurting the Country’s Cinema – IndieWire

Posted: at 2:43 pm

Its always something with the Indian censors.

This time, its the refusal of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant filmmaker Alankrta Shrivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha certification for a theatrical release in India. The film, a drama following four women in small-town India exploring sexual empowerment, freedom from patriarchy, and personal fulfillment won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival last October and the Spirit of Asia Award at the 2016 Tokyo International Film Festival, with upcoming screenings at festivals everywhere from Miami to Glasgow. The boards rejection of the film reignites familiar outrage, as the filmmakers and audiences alike have taken to social media to slam the decision as an assault on womens rights.

Infuriating as it is, this is hardly the boards first frustrating clampdown. The CBFC has long been the bane of films that push the envelope as far as social issues or physical intimacy are concerned. Some may recall the outright bans in the past of movies deemed too vulgar, like Shekhar Kapurs Bandit Queen in 1994, or Mira Nairs Kama Sutra A Tale of Love in 1996. More recently, in 2015, it raised objections to sex scenes in films like Anupam Sharmas UnIndian and Shonali Boses Margarita With a Straw, calling for re-edits that shortened the allegedly offensive depictions before clearing them for release.

And in its most high-profile and heavily disputed controversy to date, the CBFCcalled for a record 94 cuts pertaining to strong language, drug use and the mention of state names in last Junes star-studded Udta Punjab, arguing that the content jeopardized the countrys integrity and could compromise tourism in the region.

With a group as notoriously orthodox as the CBFC so often standing between films and theaters, then, some may say that the content of Lipstick Under My Burkha bold in the context of Indian cinema was bound to raise a few flags. But the refusal to certify this film, while unsurprising, has hit a particularly raw nerve for the wording used to explain its decision. The boards letter to the films producer, Prakash Jha, stated that the story is lady-oriented, their fantasy above life. There are contanious [sic] sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography, and a bit [sic] sensitive touch about one particular section of society, hence film refused under guidelines.

Its already flawed logic to deem a film inappropriate merely because it provides a perspective that could be displeasing to a certain segment of the audience. But to specify that the content is unsuitable precisely because it prioritizes the physical and emotional expression of female characters takes the decision to new levels of hypocrisy. Despite the widespread outrage over social media by industry members and audiences alike, the CBFC has only doubled down on its rejection. Board member Mamta Kale defended the decision, claiming that being a woman, you can talk about your sexual rights but you have to keep one thing in mind as to how you are showing that issue. Can families go together to watch such a movie? No, they cannot.

The argument is weak, given that watching movies especially non-mainstream ones like Lipstick Under My Burkha is less of a family affair in India today than it once was. More importantly, its a tone-deaf assessment from a group that evidently believes that routinely objectifying women for the sake of the male gaze qualifies as family-friendly entertainment.

In fact, if placing fantasy above life werentacceptable, an overwhelming proportion of mainstream, escapist Bollywood should have been banned as unsuitable for Indian audiences by now. For decades, weve watched item numbers cater predominantly to male sexual imaginations, whether in their early iterations in 1930s, when actresses playing cabaret dancers would shimmy for a roomful of men to lyrics dripping with innuendo, topresent-day Bollywood, where lithe actresses do essentially the same thing, only in even skimpier costumes, much to the delight of men ogling and hooting from the lower stalls of cinema halls.

Theres been little pushback by anyone of influence to the notion of stalking as an appropriate form of wooing a woman, a strategy that began in the 60s, when heartthrob Shammi Kapoor made it look like innocent persistence rather than harassment, and has continued to this day with 2014s Raanjhanaa, 2016s Sultan, and possibly even in the upcoming Badrinath Ki Dulhania next month. Actors over the age of 50 still woo heroines less than half their age, and actresses half-naked bodies are still plastered on posters and highlighted in film trailers to shamelessly lure in the male contingent.

The CBFC has protested to little, if any, of this. Yet the moment an outspoken film like Lipstick Under My Burkha gives female perspectives a realistic voice, or attempts to shed light on how women discover and experience their own fantasies, the censor board decides that a lady-oriented film is inappropriate. The message is clear: A male fantasy is a natural expression of masculinity; its female equivalent is somehow a threat to the sanctity of Indian society.

Its a double standard so blatant, it delegitimizes any lingering credibility the CBFC enjoyed, and throws into question the sincerity of any government calls to support creative liberty over excessive moral policing. The eventual court ruling last June to release Udta Punjab with an A (restricted to adults) certificate and a single cut, seemed to be an encouraging move pushing the board to stick to its role of certification rather than censorship. For many, it was an indication that audiences could henceforth make their own judgements about what they should or shouldnt watch. The ability of a movie like last years Parched a daring and sometimes explicit critique of misogyny in rural India to escape relatively unscathed from the boards easily offended sensibilities further re-stoked the sputtering confidence of the public.

But those hopes were extinguished just as fast when the CBFC kicked off a year-long battle with the makers of Haraamkhor, the BAFTA-nominated film about arelationship between a teenage student and her teacher, after deeming the subject matter not suitable for India. (The film was finally released in January after several enforced cuts made it suitable for a U/A certificate.) Later last year, outrage was sparked once again after the trailer of Hansal Mehtas Aligarh was restricted to adult-only audiences simply due to its mention of the word homosexuality.

By outright refusing to give Lipstick Under My Burkha a certification at all, effectively blocking a theatrical release, the CDFC confirmed that for all the alleged intent to certify rather than cut, it essentially remains a censorship body. Exercising creative liberties in India remains an exhausting, one step forward, three steps back process, at the mercy of an overly conservative boards arbitrary guidelines of what constitutes appropriate entertainment or art.

As far as Lipstick Under My Burkha goes, director Shrivastava has vowed to fight for the films big-screen release in India though it remains to be seen whether it can happen with or without edits that inevitably dilute the films message. As the country misses out on the bold storytelling talent of its own natives, well appreciate that the rest of the world can still acknowledge what India has to offer and hope that Netflix is watching.

Watch the trailer of Lipstick Under My Burkha below:

Read the original post:
Why Indian Censorship Is Hurting the Country's Cinema - IndieWire

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Why Indian Censorship Is Hurting the Country’s Cinema – IndieWire

The End of the Libertarian Dream? – POLITICO Magazine

Posted: at 2:42 pm

Justin Amash cant seem to concentrate. His eyes keep drifting toward the TV behind me, mounted on the wall inside his congressional office. The 36-year-old representative from Michigan, who arrived in Washington six years ago as a self-described libertarian Republican, is rattling off a list of concerns about the newly inaugurated president, but he is distracted by C-SPANs programming: Mick Mulvaney, his close friend and colleague from South Carolinaand a similarly libertarian-minded Republicanis getting grilled during his confirmation hearing to become director of the Office of Management and Budget. Arizona Senator John McCain had just finished his inquisition and was particularly harsh, scolding Mulvaney for voting to slash military spending and withdraw American troops from Europe and Afghanistan. It was a tense exchange, and Amash savored every moment of it. The ascent of Mulvaney to such a powerful position in the federal government, libertarians believe, proves that their ideology has invaded and influenced the Republican mainstream in a manner unimaginable a decade ago.

There is, however, a complicating factor: Mulvaneys new boss is President Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below

In campaigning for the presidency, Trump frequently sang from the same hymnal as libertarian primary rival Senator Rand Paul, warning against regime change and nation-building abroad, decrying the allied invasions of Iraq and Libya (never mind that Trump initially supported both), and promising to disengage from a self-immolating Middle East while re-evaluating American involvement in NATO. The election of an ideologically unmoored reality-TV star was startling to many libertarians, but at least it suggested some progress in their struggle with the GOPs interventionist wing. The silver lining is that Trump proved you can win the Republican nomination, and the presidency, by criticizing neoconservative foreign policy, says David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

I think the McCain-Graham wing of the party is withering, Amash tells me in his office, referring to South Carolinas hawkish senator. It was dominant 10 or 15 years ago on foreign policy matters and surveillance and other things. But today, its a rather weak force compared to a decade ago in D.C. And its almost nonexistent at home.

And yet, Trump also pledged to oversee a massive military buildup. He threatened to bomb the shit out of the Islamic State; suggested killing the families of terrorists; expressed an interest in seizing Iraqs sovereign oil; advocated the return of torture; and, in his inaugural address, declared he would eradicate Islamist terrorism from the face of the Earth. When I mention all this, Amash bursts out laughing. Not exactly a libertarian philosophy, I say. No, he shakes his head. Its not.

There are areas, certainly, in which Trumpism and libertarianism will peacefully co-exist; school choice, as evidenced by Trumps selection of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, is one example. Deregulation is another. But by and large, they cannot be reconciled. Where libertarians champion the flow of people and capital across international borders, Trump aims to slow, or even stop, both. Where libertarians advocate drug legalization and criminal justice reform, Trump and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, seek a return to law-and-order policies. Where libertarians push to protect the First and Fourth Amendments, Trump pushes back with threats of banning Muslims and expanding the surveillance state. And where Mulvaney has dedicated his career to the argument that dramatic fiscal measures are needed to prevent the United States from going bankrupt, Trump campaigned unambiguously on accumulating debt, increasing spending and not laying a finger on the entitlement programs that make up an ever-growing share of the federal budget.

THE LIBERTARIAN STANDARD-BEARERS: Rep. Justin Amash and Sen. Rand Paul outside the Capitol in 2015. | Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Sooner or later, something has to give. Mick knows the numbers. And hes going to get to, at some point, a soul-testing moment, Mark Sanford, his fellow South Carolina representative and a self-identified, lifelong libertarian, tells me. Do I go with, you know, what Donald is saying? Or do I go with what I know to be mathematic reality?

This disconnect captures the sense of uncertainty and conflict that libertarianswhether they are Republicans, Democrats or adherents of the eponymous third partyfeel in the age of Trump. After generations of being relegated to the periphery of American politics, they are seeing some of their most precious ideals accepted and advocated for at the highest levels of government. But in many policy areas, there has never been a president who poses a greater threat to what they hold dearone who is poised, potentially, to reorient the GOP electorate toward a strong, active, centralized and protectionist federal government. The Trump presidency, then, is shaping up to be a defining moment for the libertarian movement.

But it wont come down to intraparty disputes over marijuana, or sentencing reform, or government data collection. Rather, the viability of libertarianismfor the next four or eight years, and potentially much longerwill be determined to an overwhelming extent by the relative stability of international affairs and the level of security Americans feel as a result.

Not long ago, libertarians were having their long-awaited moment, with Rand Paulsupposedly the candidate who could rebrand their once-fringe ideology for a new generation of Americansgracing magazine covers and converting Republicans to a philosophy of laissez-faire at home and restraint abroad. But the reason he isnt president today, his allies say, owes equally to the rise of Trump and that of another disruptive phenomenon.

Two people were Senator Pauls undoing in the presidential race, Chip Englander, his campaign manager, tells me. Donald Trump and Jihadi John.

DEFINING MOMENT: At a 2007 primary debate, Ron Paul argued U.S. interventionism led to 9/11. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Libertarians call it the Giuliani moment. It was May 15, 2007, and the former New York mayor stood across from Ron Paul on a debate stage in Columbia, South Carolina. They had nothing in commonpersonalities and ideologies aside, Rudy Giuliani was comfortably leading the GOP presidential field, while Paul was polling in the low single digitsbut they would soon produce an inflection point in the partys modern history, one that triggered a decade of unprecedented progress for libertarians.

As a panel of Fox News moderators mocked his opposition to the Iraq War, Paul argued that American intervention in the Middle East was a major contributing factor to the September 11 attacks. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? he asked. They attack us because weve been over there. Giuliani, whose candidacy arose from his heroic handling of 9/11, pounced, calling it an extraordinary statement and asking Paul to withdraw it. The crowd roared with approval, but Paul didnt budge. I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback, he responded.

That statement, better suited to an Ivy League faculty lounge than a Republican debate stage, was the spark that started everything, says A.J. Spiker, the former Iowa GOP chairman who backed Ron Paul and later his son Rand for president. Before long, there was talk of a Ron Paul Revolution, which somehow wasnt an overstatement: As he climbed in the polls and gained name recognition, Paul began raising eye-popping sums of money online with the help of liberty movement groups that had begun forming across the country, with much of their grass-roots energy concentrated on college campuses.

There was, however, an unintended consequence: Pauls popularity served to cement libertarianisms reputation as an exotic strand of internecine opposition rather than a reliable, cooperative piece of the GOP coalition. Even though he emphasized other issues in his campaignmost memorably, auditing the Federal Reserveit was Pauls harsh critique of President George W. Bushs interventionism that defined his candidacy in 2008 and again in 2012, as well as his sons political ambitions, in the eyes of the party elite.

He alienated a lot of Republicans with a very isolationist foreign policy message, says Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman who abandoned the GOP and became the Libertarian Partys presidential nominee in 2008. Barr, listening to Paul that year, recalls thinking, If libertarians continue to exist on ideological purity in that regard ... it will condemn them to not expanding their influence in the party.

The Republican establishment was banking on exactly that. Having watched with alarm as Pauls 2012 campaign attracted significantly more support than its 2008 iteration, the partys elder statesmen were eager to undermine the movements long-term viability. When I spoke with Karl Rove a month after Election Day 2012, he predicted libertarianism would soon regress to pre-Paul irrelevance. I dont think the antiwar sentiment is durable, Rove told me. The Republican Party is not going to find itself in five or 10 years committed to neo-isolationism.

In the year that followed, Roves prediction looked anything but prescient. In July 2013, Amash sponsored an amendment to restrict the National Security Agencys bulk data collection program; it fell just 12 votes shy of passage in the House, despite fierce opposition from President Barack Obama and the congressional leadership of both parties. That amendment was inspired by blockbuster revelations a month earlier, made by intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, that the governments domestic surveillance practices were illegal. That followed a watershed moment in March 2013, when Rand Paul, then a freshman senator from Kentucky and inheritor of his fathers messianic following, had completed a nearly 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the nomination of John Brennan as Obamas CIA directorand more broadly, to the administrations refusal to rule out drone strikes on American citizens. This momentum was validated by Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a mascot of the Washington establishment, hiring Jesse Benton, the Paul family consigliere, to manage his own 2014 Senate reelection.

With another White House campaign on the horizon, the dreams of a movement rested on the younger Pauls shoulders. Everyone recognized that the disheveled, curmudgeonly 70-something Ron could win hearts and minds but never the presidency. Randmore polished, more nuanced and nearly 30 years youngerwas the libertarians chosen one. (Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Partys 2016 nominee, was never taken as seriously.) Ron had won 21 percent of the vote in Iowa and 23 percent in New Hampshire in the 2012 primary; Rand, in the eyes of his bullish base, had nowhere to go but up.

Sure enough, by July 2014, he sat atop the GOP presidential field in the RealClearPolitics average of national surveys; that same month, NBC News released polls showing him leading in New Hampshire and tied for first place in Iowa. As he prepared to launch his campaign in early 2015, Paul basked in hisand the libertarian movementsascendance, which crescendoed with an August 2014 New York Times Magazine feature, with the headline, Has the Libertarian Moment Finally Arrived? It was met with hosannas inside Pauls political operation.

Twelve days after the Times piece was published, an organization known as the Islamic State, or ISISwhich had announced the formation of a caliphate to govern Muslims worldwide, but globally was not yet a household namereleased a video depicting the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Exactly two weeks later, ISIS published a similar video showing another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, also being beheaded. With the spectacular barbarism piercing Western consciousnessamid wall-to-wall coverage, the executioner was dubbed Jihadi John by media outletsObama delivered a prime-time address on September 10 and pledged to destroy ISIS.

The next month, Time magazine featured Paul on its cover as The Most Interesting Man in Politics. The timing could not have been worse: Having intended to capture Pauls rise, the story marked the onset of his decline. He had already dropped to 12 percent in the RCP national poll average, from 14 percent in July; by Christmas, he was at 9 percent. The crash continued throughout 2015, interrupted by only a fleeting bounce after his April 7 campaign launch. In late July, he was below 6 percent, and by October, one year after Times cover, he hovered at just over 2 percent.

We did a survey in Iowa that fall, and in the survey, Republican caucus-goers were very much opposed to the policies that Senator Paul was waving the flag for: less spying, less drone strikes, less foreign intervention, closing of foreign bases, recalls Vincent Harris, the campaigns chief digital strategist.

Embarrassingly, Pauls numbers plunged so low that Fox Business excluded him from its main debate in January 2016, less than a month before Iowas first-in-the-nation caucuses. (Paul boycotted the undercard debate.) A few weeks later, after winning just 4.5 percent of the vote in Iowa, Paul quit the race.

THE NEW BOSS: Rand Paul with Donald Trump after the president signed a bill undoing a coal rule. | Rex Features/AP

It was a dramatic, if unsurprising, fall from grace. Ron Paul had masterfully exploited the frustrations of a war-weary Republican Party, and though his son was hyped as an objectively superior messenger, everyone understood the foundation of his appeal could crumble with a sudden shift in public opinion. We as libertarians know that at a time of fear, our brand doesnt sell very well, says Jack Hunter, the editor of Rare Politics and co-author of Rand Pauls 2011 book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. So when we saw beheadings on the news ... we knew it would be problematic.

Polling suggested as much. In November 2013when Rand Paul was riding high43 percent of Republicans said U.S. anti-terrorism policies were going too far in restricting civil liberties, while 41 percent said they werent going far enough to protect the homeland, according to Pew Research. In September 2014during the immediate aftermath of the Foley and Sotloff execution videosthose figures were 24 percent and 64 percent, respectively. The shift in sentiment would only accelerate. A separate poll in September 2014, commissioned by CBS News, found that 39 percent of Americans favored sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, with 55 percent opposed. Five months later, in February 2015, the percentages inverted: 57 percent of Americans wanted U.S. ground troops deployed to battle ISIS, and 37 percent were opposed. (Among Republican voters, it was 72 percent and 27 percent, respectively.)

To remain competitive, Paulwhose candidacy was already suffering from other manifest shortcomings, lack of financial support and personal prickliness chief among themtried to thread an impossible needle: projecting greater toughness to reassure mainstream Republicans, without sounding so muscular as to alienate his base. We accomplished neither, Tony Fabrizio, the Paul campaigns pollster, says. With all respect to Rand I think he wanted to prove he and his father were different. And that created natural tensions. By trying to please both sides, he wound up pleasing neither.

Drew Ivers, who chaired Ron Pauls 2008 and 2012 campaigns in Iowa, shocked his fellow libertarian activists by declining to endorse Rands 2016 bid. I remember him telling me once by phone that he was going to submit a proposal to go to war with ISIS, Ivers tells me. Go to war? Wait a minute. What do you mean, go to war?

I busted his chops about it, Matt Welch, editor at large of Reason, recalls of Pauls proposed declaration of war. And he said to me, Look, I cant win a Republican primary under these conditions if I dont support some kind of confrontation with ISIS.

Paul declined an interview request for this article. His spokesman, Sergio Gor, said in an email, Our focus is on Obamacare repeal and replacement exclusively right now. More accurately, the senators friends and allies say, he simply has no interest in re-litigating his presidential run or participating in a post-mortem of it.

Ironically, there was one Republican in 2016 who outdid Ron Pauls rants against Bushs interventionismand he won the partys nomination. Look at Trump. He went to South Carolina, a military state, and said the Iraq War was a disaster, said 9/11 happened on Bushs watch, shared these borderline conspiracy theories, Welch says. He was stridently antiwar and anti-interventionand he stomped the competition.

Trump had beaten Paul at what was supposed to be his own game.

***

Its the wild card of global affairsand the terrible hand it dealt Pauls 2016 campaignthat distracts from libertarianisms successful infiltration of the domestic policymaking complex. Education, which Republicans nationalized under Bush, is increasingly being handed back to the states. A coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans has begun challenging the status quo on issues ranging from police militarization to asset forfeiture to sentencing reform. Meanwhile, two of the libertarian communitys other longtime goals, marijuana decriminalization and marriage equality, have been realized in irreversible ways.

And yet, all of this momentum might be rendered insignificant, even irrelevant, if the new Republican president ends up going to war. In fighting for the heart and soul and future of the GOP, libertarians understand their chief strategic priority is holding Trump to his non-interventionist rhetoric. This explains why Paul was willing to support Sessions nomination, despite the new attorney generals sharply divergent views on issues such as drug prosecution and asset forfeiture: Paul, it appears, would rather spend what political capital he has opposing anyone who might inflame Trumps foreign policy. (Do not let Elliott Abrams anywhere near the State Department, the Kentucky senator wrote the week of Sessions confirmation vote, responding to reports that Trump could pick the well-known neoconservative to be deputy to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.)

So far, Paul and his ilk are taking some comfort in the company Trump keeps. The president passed on hiring Abrams. And the principals of Trumps national security teamTillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kellyare regarded as pragmatic realists who will restrain, rather than encourage, the presidents more aggressive instincts.

TRUMPs LIBERTARIAN: Mick Mulvaney is sworn in as director of the Office of Management and Budget. | Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/DPA/AP Images

That said, Trump, who loves to be called a man of action, feels a mandate to escalate various conflicts with Americas enemies. Exit polls on Election Day found that 24 percent of all voters thought the fight against ISIS was going very badly, and Trump won 83 percent of that group. Some in the Pentagon reportedly want to send ground forces into Syria. Trump has already proved unhesitant to deploy American troopsspecial operators at minimumto foreign soil. That he decided to greenlight a tremendously dangerous operation in Yemen almost immediately after taking office shows an appetite for boldness and a willingness to accept collateral damage; a Navy SEAL, as well as several civilians, were killed in the operation.

Its not what President Rand Paul would have done. And yet libertarians, who feared they ultimately would choose between an interventionist Democrat in Hillary Clinton and a neoconservative Republican nominee, still believe, perhaps naively, that this was their next best outcome. Marco Rubio, the hawkish Republican senator from Florida, would have been much worse for us, Amash tells me. I think Rubio would have ushered in a long decline of American foreign policy. Trump is just a shock to the system. Rubio is a younger, more charming John McCain.

In any case, the grass-roots foundation laid by Ron and Rand Paul seems likely to outlast Trump. Young Americans for Liberty, the group that grew out of Rons 2008 campaign, went from 96 chapters nationwide in 2009 to 602 chapters in May 2015, the month after Rands campaign launched. Today, there are 804 chapters. This growth, combined with continuous, non-election-year activismand polling showing that younger voters, both left- and right-leaning, are increasingly libertarian in their views of governmentwards off pessimistic assertions that their moment might have just come and gone.

Look at every single candidate who ran, and look at their infrastructures, Cliff Maloney, president of Young Americans for Liberty, tells me. Do you see people out still knocking doors for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or Ben Carson? No. This is going to be a slog. And were going to fight through.

The more important fight will take place on Capitol Hill. With the vast majority of Republicans already capitulating to Trump, libertarian-minded lawmakers are positioned as the most vocal bloc of intraparty opposition. Ron Paul was a lonely voice of dissent in Bushs GOP, and benefited politically when the party faithful eventually came around to some of his arguments. Today, theres a much larger contingent in the Congress oriented toward libertarianismAmash, Sanford, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and others in the House; Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the Senateand it has already shown a willingness to tangle with Trump where others in the party have passed. The aggressiveness with which libertarians check Trumps overreach, at home and abroad, will correlate with the movements credibility, and popularity, if Republican voters turn against the presidents policies.

But what if they dont? Knowing the Libertarian Party just nominated its most experienced presidential ticket ever and won just 3 percent nationally, the grave fear among libertarians is that Trumps actions will represent the very worst of his campaign promisesintervening militarily, adding to the debt, abandoning trade, restricting civil libertiesand that the GOP electorate will love him for it.

If the Republican Party becomes thoroughly Trumpist, Boaz says, theres not much room for libertarians.

Tim Alberta is national political reporter at Politico Magazine.

Excerpt from:
The End of the Libertarian Dream? - POLITICO Magazine

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on The End of the Libertarian Dream? – POLITICO Magazine

Iowa makes Libertarianism official – Death and Taxes

Posted: at 2:42 pm

There are three duties two-time Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate swore to uphold upon retaking office in 2014: compliment Senator Joni Ernst on her timeless hairdo, consume plenty of local cold brew coffee, and legitimize any third party that met established criteria. And earlier this week, Patewho we assume ran for secretary 20 years removed from his first tenure because Cedar Rapids Mayordidnt flow so seamlessly with his surnamegot to execute that latter privilege.

Upon releasing an inscrutable document detailing Iowas final voter-registration totals from the 2016 general election, Pate took to social media and declared that the Libertarian Party now had an official place on state voter-registration forms as of 2018s primaries.

Credit is due to Gary Johnson (not an oft-used phrase in 2017), who secured just under four percent of Iowans presidential votes. And sincea candidate need only exceed two percent of the in-state vote to have their party officially recognized, Johnson and his followers in the Hawkeye State can take a bow and bask in their authenticity.

According to local publication Daily Nonpareil, there are close to 10,000 registered Iowa Libertarians, a roughly five-fold increase since Barack Obamas 2012 re-election. Now if only one of those nearly 10K citizens knew how to update the state-party website.

[Daily NonPareil | photo: Getty]

Original post:
Iowa makes Libertarianism official - Death and Taxes

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Iowa makes Libertarianism official – Death and Taxes

Scientists Have Grown the First Synthetic Self-Developing Embryo – Futurism

Posted: at 2:40 pm

The Tale of Two Stem Cells

Embryo-based research has advanced rapidly over the past few years. While scientists have developed progressive opinions regarding the ethics of gene editing and chimera embryosthe research continues to carry a large stigma due to theethical limit on embryos. We might now be able to avoid ethical dilemmas entirely thanks to the innovation of thesynthetic self-developing embryo.

A study published in the journal Sciencefeatures the external development of a mouse embryo. With the use of embryonic stem cells, developmental biologist Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz and her team at the University of Cambridge were able to replicate a living mouse embryo.

By combining genetically modified mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and extra-embryonic trophoblast stem cells (TSCs) in a 3D gel scaffold, Zernicka-Goetzs team was able to drive the development of a synthetic embryo very similar to that of natural embryos. The synthetic embryo mirrored a natural embryo notonly did it form anatomically correct regions, but it also formed them at the right time. This means that the stem cells utilized are able to talk to one another to guide the specific steps of development.

The synthetic embryo cannot develop into a healthy fetuslargely due to the fact that a third stem cell would be required to develop a yolk sac, the part of the embryo that provides nourishment. The current conditions that allowthe synthetic embryo to develop are not optimal for placenta development either, closing the door entirely on a synthetic fetus. The rest of methods can be duplicated for others to emulate, however.

Many research teams in the past have tried to develop the embryo in synthetic form with limited success. Zernicka-Goetzs team introduced a 3D extracellular matrix into the equation, which made it possible for the stem cells to operate and form the synthetic embryo. The teams discovery is a promising sign for the future of embryo research.

Development in the early stages of the embryo is important to pregnancies, with more thantwo-thirds of miscarriages, linked to genetic glitches during fertilization. With the advent of the synthetic embryo, Zernicka-Goetz noted to The Guardian that researchers can conduct studies on key stages of the human development without actually having to work on embryos.

Currently, researchers are shackled by a shortage of human embryos to study, as scientists depend on donated eggs fromIVF clinics. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are in limitless supply and avoid the ethical dilemma posed by donated or discarded embryos.

The teams next step is to successfully synthesize a human embryo analog they are convinced that its inception will push us forward in studying our earliest stages of development.

Go here to read the rest:
Scientists Have Grown the First Synthetic Self-Developing Embryo - Futurism

Posted in Futurism | Comments Off on Scientists Have Grown the First Synthetic Self-Developing Embryo – Futurism

New Study Confirms That the Future of Data Storage Is in DNA – Futurism

Posted: at 2:40 pm

Information Handling

DNA contains information about a living organism. It codes everything in an living being. Thats why it makes sense for corporations like Microsoft to invest in research that studies howDNA can be used to store data. Unlike most of the existing data storage devices out there, DNA doesnt degrade over time, plus its very compact. For example, just four grams of DNA can contain a years worth of information produced by all of humanity combined.

As humankind progresses, the amount of data we produce and consume has been growing considerably. Gone are the days when a 1.44Mb floppy disk could fulfill our needs. This continual increase in data necessitates a more robust and durable data storage device. In a study published in the journal Science, Researchers Yaniv Erlich and Dina Zielinski demonstrated how DNA may be the answer to our data storage needs.

Erlich and Zielinski stored six files into 72,000 DNA strands, each 200 bases long. The files included a full computer operating system, a 1895 French film, an Amazon gift card, a computer virus, a Pioneer plaque, and a study by information theorist Claude Shannon. We mapped the bits of the files to DNA nucleotides. Then, we synthesized these nucleotides and stored the molecules in a test-tube, Erlich toldResearchGate. To pack the information, we devised a strategycalled DNA Fountainthat uses mathematical concepts from coding theory. It was this strategy that allowed us to achieve optimal packing, which was the most challenging aspect of the study.

To retrieve the data, the researchers used DNA sequencing technology and a software to translate the genetic code back into binary. To retrieve the information, we sequenced the molecules. This is the basic process, Erlich said. Remarkably, the recovered files were error-free.

Humanitys means of keeping data intact have greatly improved over the years. Weve moved from paper to magnetic film to microchips. But DNA presents an even better option. As Erlich explained:

DNA has several big advantages. First, it is much smaller than traditional media. In fact, we showed that we can reach a density of 215 Petabytes per gram of DNA! Second, DNA lasts for an extended period of time, over 100 years, which is orders of magnitude more than traditional media. Try to listen to any disk from the 90s, and see if its still good.

Erlich also believes that its time to move to a better technology. [T]raditional media suffers from digital obsoleteness. My parents have 8 mm tapes that are basically useless now, he added. DNA has been around for 3 billion years, and humanity is unlikely to lose its ability to read these molecules. If it does, we will have much bigger problems than data storage.

Asked when this technology could be made available, Erlich replied with an optimistic estimate. I would guess more than a decade, he said. We are still in early days, but it also took magnetic media years of research and development before it became useful.

Ultimately, research like Erlichs and Zielinskis leads to other opportunitiesto explore a future of biological computers. This opens the possibility of using molecular biology tools to assist computing, Erlich said. Usually, it is the other way around!

View original post here:
New Study Confirms That the Future of Data Storage Is in DNA - Futurism

Posted in Futurism | Comments Off on New Study Confirms That the Future of Data Storage Is in DNA – Futurism

First ceiling collapse at Charlotte Maxeke in January already, claim staff – News24

Posted: at 1:48 am

2017-03-03 12:13

Lizeka Tandwa and Jenni Evans, News24

Johannesburg - A section of a dental clinic at Johannesburg's Charlotte Maxeke Hospital has been cordoned off because part of a ceiling that collapsed in January has still not been repaired, according to two sources.

Speaking on condition of anonymity after Thursday afternoon's ceiling collapse at the hospital entrance, staff said a section at the dental clinic had already collapsed in January.

One worker said Gauteng Infrastructure MEC Jacob Mamabolo's statement that the rest of the building was safe, was false.

A worker said that, when staff arrived at the dental clinic on January 23, they found a part of the ceiling had caved in. The clinic is run by the University of the Witwatersrand.

Gauteng infrastructure department spokesperson Theo Nkonki could not immediately confirm the incident, but said Mamabolo was due back at the hospital on Friday to assess the situation.

A section of the roof at the large hospital in Parktown, Johannesburg, collapsed around 14:30 on Thursday. Seven people were injured, three of them seriously, Johannesburg emergency services said.

Shoddy workmanship

Speaking at the site on Thursday, Mamabolo alleged that shoddy workmanship by contractors who were waterproofing the roof had played a role in the collapse.

"The way they were removing the concrete stone, we could see they did not do a proper check on the strength of the building or the roof itself."

Mamabolo said the contractor had removed concrete stones and placed them on a thin roof that could not handle the weight, resulting in the collapse.Private construction workers were repairing a leak at the time.

The contractor was removed from the premises and an investigation was started.

The FF Plus believed the entire health infrastructure in the province was collapsing. It urged the infrastructure department to be more thorough with checks on contractors to avoid future catastrophes.

'There must be accountability'

The party said committees in the Gauteng legislature were often told of work not done properly, or jobs left unfinished because the contractor was either unqualified, or had ran out of money.

"Construction work comes to a standstill while the provincial government must go to court to get contracts suspended and to appoint new construction companies," said FF Plus MPL Philip van Staden.

DA MPL Jack Bloom called for an urgent infrastructure check at the hospital. A report dated 2012 had contained warnings of structural problems in the building, he said.

He wanted to know how the contractor was appointed, and recommended that future maintenance should be made the responsibility of the hospital's management.

"There must be accountability for this terrible tragedy that should serve as a wake-up call to give a far higher priority to maintenance and repair of our hospitals."

According to the infrastructure department's website, the Gauteng government planned to spend R42bn on socio-economic infrastructure programmes in the next three years.

A "maintenance crack team" had already implemented a pilot project of revitalising the Orlando Clinic dental ward.

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

Read more:

First ceiling collapse at Charlotte Maxeke in January already, claim staff - News24

Posted in Socio-economic Collapse | Comments Off on First ceiling collapse at Charlotte Maxeke in January already, claim staff – News24

Rethinking Nonviolent Resistance In The Face Of Right-Wing Populism – Huffington Post

Posted: at 1:48 am

From Brexit to the Trump presidency and Marine le Pens campaign-trail successes in France, right-wing populism is sweeping across the West.

Analysts and scholars have expressed concerns that this movement could threaten the fate of liberal democracy, and its hard-fought triumph over other contesting political ideologies since the end the Cold War.

In other words, the End of History, as described by the American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama, may come to an end.

The rise of right-wing populism may also open a Pandoras box for demagogues to promote a xenophobic agenda, as evident in Donald Trumps controversial travel ban.

There is deep fear that populist leaders such as Donald Trump advised by the right-wing ideologue Steve Bannon will eviscerate democratic checks and balances in the pursuit of consolidated power.

As a response, activists are calling for civil resistance against authoritarianism, and street protests are being staged to remind the enthroned populists of people power.

Safeguarding democracy through civil resistance is necesary. But it is important to acknowledge the fact that many of these leaders are democratically elected and supported by large segments of society.

We may choose to believe that voters for right-wing populist parties share chauvinistic and nationalistic opinions with their strongmen. However, the popular appeal of these leaders has much to do with the socio-economic decline that some constituents in the West have experienced, and this needs to be addressed if we want to efficiently counter authoritarian regimes.

The increasing oligarchisation of liberal democratic societies set a stage for a dignity deficit, especially among white, non-urban and working-class population.

In recent decades, the middle class in the West found their lives unprecedentedly precarious due to increasing unemployment and a lack of social security. The post-Cold War era ushered into force neoliberal dominance.

The speed of economic globalisation means that manufacturing jobs have been lost to countries offering cheap labour, while austerity policies resulting in cutback in social expenditure imply that most of the time, individuals are left on their own to finance their increasingly expensive healthcare and education, to name a few necessities.

Automation and immigrants looking for high- and low-skilled jobs in economically advanced countries have raised many questions about the future of employment for the American and European middle classes. These were left unanswered.

Against this backdrop, the well-off have reaped the benefit of globalisation. So have the cosmopolitan urbanites who have caught up with changing socio-economic landscape.

Meanwhile, political elites in Washington, Paris and London are perceived as having ignored this crisis of surging inequality, as they continue neoliberal policies that hurt the working class people who often consider themselves the backbone of their societies.

For instance, a series of free trade deals have been advocated by governments to be a brainchild of liberal democracy. However, rather than improving work conditions and life chances for common people, many of these deals have strengthened global corporations, contributing to greater inequality.

A good example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which potentially radicalises corporate deregulation, challenging states judicial sovereignty, and imposes fiercer standards of intellectual property.

Think tanks also point out that the signed and ratified TPP can result in job losses and declining wages.

Right-wing populism is a symptom of society polarised by economic injustice and the collapse of liberal democracy, which has enhanced the distance between political elites and their constituents.

Populist figures such as Trump and le Pen can mobilise popular support sufficiently to contest other liberal or centrist candidates because of their anti-establishment rhetoric.

They acknowledge the injustice and humiliation inflicted on their constituents through the loss of jobs and neglect of the political class.

Often popular anger is being diverted toward immigrants, who are portrayed as a threat to economic and cultural security, resulting in the proliferation of xenophobic attacks. Scapegoating immigrants becomes the expression of fear and vulnerability.

The increasingly precarious livelihood of this section of the population has led to a general perception that their idea of a great nation is in danger.

Populist slogans such as Make America Great Again or Take back our Country respond to this perception and collective emotion attached to it.

Lacking other political alternatives, people find hope in right-wing populist discourse, even when the candidates push forward radical agendas.

In this sense, the social divide runs parallel to the crisis of liberal democracy. Tackling right-wing populism requires not only resistance against leaders with authoritarian traits but also comprehension of why a vast number of people view populism as a hopeful alternative to the existing system.

Resistance in the form of street demonstrations and boycotts remains an important tool for defending democracy. Nevertheless, it does little to address ongoing social bifurcation.

It is difficult to imagine that supporters of right wing-populism, who despise the so-called political correctness and see the liberal agenda as irrelevant to their livelihood, would participate in progressive demonstrations such as the Womens March.

Does this mean that protests end up constituting an echo chamber where the progressive agenda circulates among those already convinced by the progressive ideas? Does it imply that while liberals resist Trump with various methods of nonviolent action, they have so far failed to understand the underpinning causes of populist trajectory, and have thereby missed the chance to communicate with those electing populist leaders?

Is it possible that protests can contribute to dividing society even more as protesters at times claim to hold higher moral ground than their populist opponents?

It is high time to rethink how nonviolent resistance can help counter right-wing populism.

Nonviolent resistance is more than taking to the street. It is political activism in the sense that it offers analytic tools to understand pillars of support of the ruling government, which normally include electoral constituents, bureaucratic bodies and the media.

Well crafted messages should convey to the general public the elites legitimacy deficit, and at the same time show the availability to political alternatives.

The messages amplified through persistent campaigns should be conducive to the eventual realignment of allies. Shifting alliances especially the defection of electoral supporters of the government wil allow activists to increase political momentum in the pursuit of social and political change.

The implication is that those committing to nonviolent resistance not only resist the powers that be they also analyse how the ruling powers discourses resonate with popular resentment, which in effect helps galvanise support to sustain its ruling legitimacy.

This understanding allows activists to design campaigns that show empathy to groups across political affiliations.

In the wake of right-wing populism, these campaigns need to address the structural underpinnings of a collapsing political establishment and offer a genuine platform for debating alternatives based on economic redistribution, reconfiguration of power relations between the political class and the people, and political reconciliation of groups with different aspirations.

Communicating with those you disagree with instead of reinforcing an echo chamber is the key to achieving all this.

The ideas laid out above are not completely novel.

Examples of communicating across the aisle appeared during US Civil Rights campaigns where African American leaders tried to appeal to white consciousness, extending their political messages to convince white priests and white constituents to endorse the course of the black struggle.

In ousting the Slobodan Miloevi, the Butcher of the Balkans, Serbias pro-democracy movements launched campaigns in Miloevis rural footholds, areas that had initially endorsed his ethno-nationalism.

Their success lived in the campaigns association of healthy patriotism with the downfall of Miloevi, and the creation of peaceful and democratic Serbia. The campaign message sought to unite Serbians whose political opinions were once split along the fault line of pro- or anti-Miloevi.

Beyond overthrowing a dictator, a well-run campaign can bridge the perception gaps that divide a nation, reminding us of the importance of constructing the future together based on the idea of dignity, justice and inclusiveness.

This article is adapted from a blog originally published on Cafe Dissensus.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

View original post here:

Rethinking Nonviolent Resistance In The Face Of Right-Wing Populism - Huffington Post

Posted in Socio-economic Collapse | Comments Off on Rethinking Nonviolent Resistance In The Face Of Right-Wing Populism – Huffington Post

Focusing on religious oppression in China misses the big picture – CNN

Posted: at 1:47 am

But I've also seen how religion is tightly proscribed.

Only five religious groups are allowed to exist in China: Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism. The government controls the appointment of major religious figures, and decides where places of worship can be built. It tries to influence theology and limits contacts overseas. And it bans groups it doesn't like, especially the spiritual practice Falun Gong, or groups it calls cults, like the charismatic Christian splinter sect Almighty God.

But overall, the message is glum. Almost all groups are said to face serious restrictions, with three groups --Uyghurs who practice Islam, Protestant Christians, and followers of the banned spiritual practice Falun Gong --facing "high" or "very high" levels of government interference.

While most of the facts in the study are correct, the context feels more negative than the religious world I've experienced. Of course it is in the nature of such reports to be critical --this is what watchdogs like Freedom House are for-- but it feeds into an overall assumption in western countries that the Chinese government is a major persecutor of religion.

On the face of it, this is horrific -- so many churches shorn of the very symbol of their faith. What better example of a heavy-handed atheistic state persecuting belief?

And yet I think this is not typical of Protestantism in China. I've made several trips to the area where the crosses were removed and feel I know the region well.

I'd say that the most important point is that virtually none of these churches have been closed. All continue to have worshipers and services just like before. In addition, the campaign never spread beyond the one province. Some pessimists see it as a precursor for a campaign that might spread nationally, but so far that hasn't happened and there is no indication it will.

What seems to have happened is a fairly special case. That region is at most 10% Protestant -- above the national average of about 5%, but still a minority. But local Christians decided to put huge red crosses on the roofs of buildings and churches, so they dominated the skyline of every city, town, and village across the province. That gave the impression that Christianity was the dominant local religion and irked many non-Christians.

Self-critical Christians told me that their big red crosses were meant well. They were enthused by their faith and wanted to proclaim it. But they also sheepishly said it might also have been a sign of vanity; rather than putting their money into mission work or social engagement, they wanted to boast about their wealth and faith. I felt they were a bit hard on themselves -- in a normal, healthy society an open expression of one's faith should be normal -- but it is true that it was also a potential provocation for a state that does not give religion much public space.

This mirrors what I've seen as well. Protestantism is booming and Chinese cities are full of unregistered (also called "underground" or "house") churches. These are known to the government but still allowed to function. They attract some of the best-educated and successful people in China. And they are socially engaged, with outreach programs to the homeless, orphanages, and even families of political prisoners. To me, this is an amazing story and far outweighs the cross-removal campaign, which basically ended and seems to have had no lasting consequences.

Now, it's true that all this could change. Last autumn, the government issued new regulations on religion. The most important point of the rules was to reemphasize a ban on religious groups' ties to foreign groups -- for example, sending people abroad to seminaries, or inviting foreigners to teach or train in China. This is clearly part of a broader trend in China that we see in other areas. Non-governmental organizations are also under pressure, and the surest way to get unwanted government attention is to have links abroad.

Given the predilections of the Xi administration, these new religious regulations could be harshly enforced. We could see unregistered churches forced to join government churches. And we could see outreach programs closed down.

If this happens, then I would say that Protestantism would be suffering from a "high" degree of persecution. And if it happens we'll need hard-hitting reports condemning it in no uncertain terms. But until this crackdown really occurs, we might be missing the forest for the trees.

Ian Johnson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent based in Beijing. His new book, "The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao," will be published in April. The views expressed above are solely his own.

Original post:

Focusing on religious oppression in China misses the big picture - CNN

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Focusing on religious oppression in China misses the big picture – CNN

Articles: Islam, the Veil, and Oppression – American Thinker – American Thinker

Posted: at 1:47 am

Wouldnt you feel that it was your fault that this child was raped? I know that I could never live with myself if something like that happened. That is why I wear the hijab.

Although only two or three years younger than Zoepf, this Muslim woman named Asma is light years removed from the idea that blaming an unveiled woman for the actions of a child molester [is] outrageous [and] to argue otherwise [is] to suggest that men [aren't] responsible for themselves.

Zoepf quotes Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan sociologist who has explained that the traditional Islamic society hardly acknowledge[s] the individual, whom it abhor[s] as a disturber of the collective harmony. Consequently, traditional society produce[s] Muslims who [are] literally submissive to the will of the group.

If seen in a positive light, this group cohesion creates a strong community bond where all Muslims are guardians of the others in the group. Thus, if someone slipped, then the guilt would be shared." Consequently, less important are the rights of the individual compared with the "rights of the community." This sense of group identity is certainly a common thread among tightly knit communities of many different religious organizations.

On the other hand, this misogyny disproportionately burdens female members. Thus, females who grow up under this constant scrutiny face a particularly difficult path, since the mere fact of their being in the public eye is often enough to raise suspicions about their modesty.

Hereinlies a fundamental and clear-cut difference between a society based on individual responsibility for ones actions and one based on group conformity wrapped around a guilt-induced rationale. At no time does a mans accountability for assault enter this mindset. According to this point of view, the woman deliberately put herself in a position to be victimized and the community did nothing to stop the womans actions. This, is why Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim clericcan assert, without irony, that an unveiled woman is asking to be raped since she is "like uncovered meat who attract sexual predators." Moreover, al Hilali "suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame" since there were women who "sway suggestively" and "wore make-up and immodest dress." He went on to say that if the woman "was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred." Thus, the problem of rape lies entirely with the women victims.

And many followers of Islam concur. Abdul Jabar Azimi states that "Hijab prevents molestation" and mentions the Qur'an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab: "O Prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested (Al-Qu'ran 33:59)."

Thus,the "Hijab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested."

Which, of course, begs the question -- if a woman is uncovered, does that make her ripe for a sexual attack -- thus, if a non-Muslim woman is wearing Western garb, is it correct to presume that she is a proper target for an attack? Ask the rape victims of Cologne and other European cities.

In her graphic novel Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi demonstrates how in 1980, Iran was transformed under the Islamic Revolution so that she no longer could go to a French secular school but was forced to wear the veil, attend a segregated school, and fear for her mother, who was demonstrating for freedom and choice.

With the Shah'soverthrow in 1979, alcohol was banned, clubs were shut down, and women had to be covered head-to-toe in public. Daniel Greenfield documents what happened recently to one young girl and her friends who had the audacity to remove their hijabs. The young people were taken to prison and the court issued its punishment -- for wearing a skirt, each girl would receive 40 lashes while the boys who had partied and listened to western music would receive 50 lashes.

Farhana Qaziwas interviewed by Abigail R. Esman and recounts how she was "blessed to be an American Muslim woman who would not have had the same opportunities in life if she had remained in Pakistan." She explains that her father raised her to be a bridge between the East and West and she has used her skills in counterterrorism work. Her work focuses on the divisions in the Muslim world today -- "a broken mass of billions blinded by age-old customs, traditional, and patriarchal norms steeped in ancient cultures." She is trying "to understand the way that Islam has been destroyed by splinter groups, religious fanatics, and hardline conservatives, issuing fatwas that oppose women's rights."

Qazi maintains that many Muslim females join Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups because, the groups, e.g., ISIS, "empower these girls." This is because "many Muslim girls living in the West are still bound by cultural (read controlled) rules and have little freedom outside of their home environment; they aren't allowed to 'hang out' with Western friends and these girls certainly don't have the same opportunities as their brothers or male cousins. In these cases, girls look for alternatives, which terrorism provides" and the terrorist groups are only too happy to make use of the girls as "cannon fodder." And, if the girls do not obey, they will be silenced by being shot with paintballs, whipped, or stoned to death.

Qazi states that because Muslims "believe that God's love is only for the select few, then this teaching restricts children in many ways; they are unable to cope in a western society and compelled to stay with their own communities. They are quite vulnerable to extremist recruitment."

In 2010, Nonie Darwish wrote that President Obama

did not tell the Muslim world what they needed to hear, and should have heard from the leader of the Free world. He had a moral obligation to add that we need to protect the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab and punish those who force them to do so.

Many Muslim governments do not force the Islamic outfit on women. Egypt is one such country and the problem for the majority of Egyptian women is not being forced by their government to wear the hijab, but rather, they are forced by radical Islamists and their families. Mr. Obama should have known that the Egyptian government itself often discourages women from covering up and actually forbids the wives of Egyptian diplomats from wearing the hijab and even head covering. The reason I know that is because my brother is an Egyptian diplomat. The social and religious pressure on Egyptian women is huge and tyranny does not necessarily come from the top but often from Islamist Sharia enforcers on the streets who often want to take matters in their own hands. They use ridicule, pressure, intimidation, humiliation, and even throwing acid on women who do not wear the Islamic garb.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that Muslim women,resigned to their circumstances,survive by reciting "Inshallah, God willing." Thus, if a woman does not submit, "then a man's good name, and his authorityare damaged." This "belief is part of a larger one that individuals don't matter; that their choices and desires are meaningless, particularly if the individuals are women." As a result, "[t]his sense of honor and male entitlement drastically restricts women's choices [so that] a whole culture and its religion weigh down every Muslim, but the heaviest weight falls disproportionately on women's shoulders."

And recently, the military ruler for the region of eastern Libya, General Abdul Razek al-Nazouri, announced his decision to bar Libyan women from leaving the country unguarded by a male.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also maintains that "the Muslim veil, [and the] different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery." In fact,a woman "must ask permission to leave the house, and when [she] does, [she] must always hide behind thick drapery. Ashamed of [her] own body, suppressing [her] own desires -- what small space in a [woman's] life can be called [her] own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and the Muslim veil blinkers botha woman's vision and her destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race, but of a sex."

That a piece of cloth should be the center of so much attention should speak to the fact that it represents much more than a piece of material. Certainly, Muslims can wrap their explanations around the idea of modesty as much as they want, but, in reality, far too many women are gagging under the weight of the veil.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

I am currently reading Excellent Daughters: The Secret Lives of Young Women Who Are Transforming the Arab World by Katherine Zoepf. One chapter discusses the use of the veil or the hijab and it is a most telling revelation about the astonishing differences of thinking in the traditional Islamic society as contrasted with Western thought. Zoepf recounts this encounter with a Muslim woman who proudly explains why she wears the hijab.

What if a man sees you girls walking in the street with your hair uncovered and becomes so aroused that he goes and abuses a child?

Wouldnt you feel that it was your fault that this child was raped? I know that I could never live with myself if something like that happened. That is why I wear the hijab.

Although only two or three years younger than Zoepf, this Muslim woman named Asma is light years removed from the idea that blaming an unveiled woman for the actions of a child molester [is] outrageous [and] to argue otherwise [is] to suggest that men [aren't] responsible for themselves.

Zoepf quotes Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan sociologist who has explained that the traditional Islamic society hardly acknowledge[s] the individual, whom it abhor[s] as a disturber of the collective harmony. Consequently, traditional society produce[s] Muslims who [are] literally submissive to the will of the group.

If seen in a positive light, this group cohesion creates a strong community bond where all Muslims are guardians of the others in the group. Thus, if someone slipped, then the guilt would be shared." Consequently, less important are the rights of the individual compared with the "rights of the community." This sense of group identity is certainly a common thread among tightly knit communities of many different religious organizations.

On the other hand, this misogyny disproportionately burdens female members. Thus, females who grow up under this constant scrutiny face a particularly difficult path, since the mere fact of their being in the public eye is often enough to raise suspicions about their modesty.

Hereinlies a fundamental and clear-cut difference between a society based on individual responsibility for ones actions and one based on group conformity wrapped around a guilt-induced rationale. At no time does a mans accountability for assault enter this mindset. According to this point of view, the woman deliberately put herself in a position to be victimized and the community did nothing to stop the womans actions. This, is why Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim clericcan assert, without irony, that an unveiled woman is asking to be raped since she is "like uncovered meat who attract sexual predators." Moreover, al Hilali "suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame" since there were women who "sway suggestively" and "wore make-up and immodest dress." He went on to say that if the woman "was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred." Thus, the problem of rape lies entirely with the women victims.

And many followers of Islam concur. Abdul Jabar Azimi states that "Hijab prevents molestation" and mentions the Qur'an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab: "O Prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested (Al-Qu'ran 33:59)."

Thus,the "Hijab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested."

Which, of course, begs the question -- if a woman is uncovered, does that make her ripe for a sexual attack -- thus, if a non-Muslim woman is wearing Western garb, is it correct to presume that she is a proper target for an attack? Ask the rape victims of Cologne and other European cities.

In her graphic novel Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi demonstrates how in 1980, Iran was transformed under the Islamic Revolution so that she no longer could go to a French secular school but was forced to wear the veil, attend a segregated school, and fear for her mother, who was demonstrating for freedom and choice.

With the Shah'soverthrow in 1979, alcohol was banned, clubs were shut down, and women had to be covered head-to-toe in public. Daniel Greenfield documents what happened recently to one young girl and her friends who had the audacity to remove their hijabs. The young people were taken to prison and the court issued its punishment -- for wearing a skirt, each girl would receive 40 lashes while the boys who had partied and listened to western music would receive 50 lashes.

Farhana Qaziwas interviewed by Abigail R. Esman and recounts how she was "blessed to be an American Muslim woman who would not have had the same opportunities in life if she had remained in Pakistan." She explains that her father raised her to be a bridge between the East and West and she has used her skills in counterterrorism work. Her work focuses on the divisions in the Muslim world today -- "a broken mass of billions blinded by age-old customs, traditional, and patriarchal norms steeped in ancient cultures." She is trying "to understand the way that Islam has been destroyed by splinter groups, religious fanatics, and hardline conservatives, issuing fatwas that oppose women's rights."

Qazi maintains that many Muslim females join Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups because, the groups, e.g., ISIS, "empower these girls." This is because "many Muslim girls living in the West are still bound by cultural (read controlled) rules and have little freedom outside of their home environment; they aren't allowed to 'hang out' with Western friends and these girls certainly don't have the same opportunities as their brothers or male cousins. In these cases, girls look for alternatives, which terrorism provides" and the terrorist groups are only too happy to make use of the girls as "cannon fodder." And, if the girls do not obey, they will be silenced by being shot with paintballs, whipped, or stoned to death.

Qazi states that because Muslims "believe that God's love is only for the select few, then this teaching restricts children in many ways; they are unable to cope in a western society and compelled to stay with their own communities. They are quite vulnerable to extremist recruitment."

In 2010, Nonie Darwish wrote that President Obama

did not tell the Muslim world what they needed to hear, and should have heard from the leader of the Free world. He had a moral obligation to add that we need to protect the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab and punish those who force them to do so.

Many Muslim governments do not force the Islamic outfit on women. Egypt is one such country and the problem for the majority of Egyptian women is not being forced by their government to wear the hijab, but rather, they are forced by radical Islamists and their families. Mr. Obama should have known that the Egyptian government itself often discourages women from covering up and actually forbids the wives of Egyptian diplomats from wearing the hijab and even head covering. The reason I know that is because my brother is an Egyptian diplomat. The social and religious pressure on Egyptian women is huge and tyranny does not necessarily come from the top but often from Islamist Sharia enforcers on the streets who often want to take matters in their own hands. They use ridicule, pressure, intimidation, humiliation, and even throwing acid on women who do not wear the Islamic garb.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that Muslim women,resigned to their circumstances,survive by reciting "Inshallah, God willing." Thus, if a woman does not submit, "then a man's good name, and his authorityare damaged." This "belief is part of a larger one that individuals don't matter; that their choices and desires are meaningless, particularly if the individuals are women." As a result, "[t]his sense of honor and male entitlement drastically restricts women's choices [so that] a whole culture and its religion weigh down every Muslim, but the heaviest weight falls disproportionately on women's shoulders."

And recently, the military ruler for the region of eastern Libya, General Abdul Razek al-Nazouri, announced his decision to bar Libyan women from leaving the country unguarded by a male.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also maintains that "the Muslim veil, [and the] different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery." In fact,a woman "must ask permission to leave the house, and when [she] does, [she] must always hide behind thick drapery. Ashamed of [her] own body, suppressing [her] own desires -- what small space in a [woman's] life can be called [her] own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and the Muslim veil blinkers botha woman's vision and her destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race, but of a sex."

That a piece of cloth should be the center of so much attention should speak to the fact that it represents much more than a piece of material. Certainly, Muslims can wrap their explanations around the idea of modesty as much as they want, but, in reality, far too many women are gagging under the weight of the veil.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

More here:

Articles: Islam, the Veil, and Oppression - American Thinker - American Thinker

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Articles: Islam, the Veil, and Oppression – American Thinker – American Thinker