Tag Archives : Build House

The Taliban or a failed state?

Aug. 15 marks the one-year anniversary of the return to Taliban rule in Afghanistan. It has been a disastrous year for the Afghan people. The Taliban rulers have reneged on their promises to respect women’s rights: They have barred secondary-school girls from public schools, dismissed women from many government jobs, forbade them from traveling alone and ordered women to dress in clothing that covers everything but their faces. 

The Taliban have also gone back on their promise to create a government inclusive of minority groups. They promised to grant amnesty to those who worked with the former government, but then killed or disappeared hundreds of former government officials and members of the Afghan security forces. And they promised not to harbor terrorists, but al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was living in a “safe house” in a toney neighborhood of Kabul until he was killed by a U.S. drone strike. 

But if you think the Taliban are bad, and I do, just think of what will happen if the country devolves into another civil war. Let’s face it, there are no democratic forces waiting in the wings to take over. If the U.S. doesn’t want Afghanistan to plunge into a state of chaos, it better take measures, including working with the Taliban, to revive the economy. 

How can we work with the Taliban, you ask? Not only are they misogynists and sectarian zealots, but they had been harboring one of the most wanted men on the planet. But intelligence analysts at the time of the U.S. withdrawal described al-Qaeda as “a skeleton of its former self” and the 71-year-old al-Zawahiri was no longer “the brains” of al-Qaeda but a figurehead. 

The real threat today is not al-Qaeda but the Islamic State-Khorasan (known as ISIS-K). As former CIA director General Petraeus told CNN, “They are the ones carrying out the most significant attacks in Afghanistan trying to foment a sectarian civil war.” ISIS-K was responsible for the horrific bombing at the Kabul airport on Aug. 26 that killed 170 Afghan civilians and 13 U.S. service members. It regularly targets minority groups, especially the Shiite Hazaras, and is thought to be responsible for thousands of deaths since it was formed in 2015. 

The Taliban have declared ISIS-K a corrupt “sect” and forbidden Afghans to deal with it. When the U.S. military was in Afghanistan, there was tacit collaboration with the Taliban to target ISIS-K. 

Right now, they are only able to carry out sporadic bombings but their goal is to take over the country and create an even more draconian Islamic State, plus they have transnational ambitions. As the economic situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen, impoverished men will be more and more enticed to join this bloodthirsty group, as will disenchanted members of the Taliban.

That’s why, apart from humanitarian considerations, it’s in the U.S. interest to help the failing Afghan economy. 

When I traveled to Afghanistan in the Spring of 2022 with an all-women’s delegation, we found a level of poverty that was heartbreaking — families eating boiled grass, parents selling their children, fathers selling their kidneys. Visiting a poor community, when we asked one mother how she felt about the Taliban keeping girls from going to secondary school, she replied, “We don’t even send our sons to school because we can’t afford a notebook and a pen. Besides, we need to send our children out on the streets to beg for food.” 

The World Food Program said in July that nearly half the population is acutely food insecure and that Afghanistan continues to face “the highest prevalence of insufficient food consumption globally.” 

Many Afghans we met, even those who had supported the U.S. presence and detest the Taliban, saw the U.S. as responsible for the economic collapse. They said the U.S. created an economy totally dependent on outside funds, then not only stopped the flow of funds once the Taliban took over but also froze over $7 billion in Afghan Central Bank money that the previous government had parked at the U.S. Federal Reserve. They were particularly appalled that half those funds were now subject to a lawsuit by 9/11 families, even though none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans. 

The Biden administration has been engaged in talks with the Afghan government to come up with ways to return at least half the $7 billion, but it has been almost a year with no resolution. Now the harboring of al-Zawahiri makes it even more politically difficult for the administration, which has always been afraid of being labeled soft on the Taliban.

But giving Afghans back their own money would help save the banking system from utter collapse, and filling in the missing $2 billion shortfall in the UN $4.4 billion emergency appeal would help feed millions of hungry Afghans. 

Let’s remember the dire consequences of previous U.S. actions. The U.S. helped create al-Qaeda when it funded the mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, including the brutal treatment of Sunni Muslims, led to the creation of ISIS. Will we let the U.S. freezing of Afghan funds create an ISIS caliphate in Afghanistan? 

Yes, the international community should keep pressuring the Taliban to fulfill its promises, but punishing the Afghan people for Taliban abuses only victimizes them twice. Helping to jump-start the Afghan economy is not only a compassionate policy for the long suffering Afghans, but it is also the right policy for the security of the region and the United States. 

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of the women’s peace group CODEPINK and the organization Unfreeze Afghanistan. She was a member of the Women’s Peace and Education Delegation to Afghanistan in March.

Source: TEST FEED1

Florida private school granted exception to Biden LGBTQ+ policy changes, will receive federal meal funding

A private religious school in central Florida is exempt from adhering to new federal policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and will continue to receive funding for a free meal program for its students, attorneys for the school said this week.

Grant Park Christian Academy in Tampa, Fla., a private school of 56 pre-K through eighth grade students from low-income families, was granted the exemption on Friday, according to the school’s lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

In a lawsuit filed late last month, the ADF had argued that, if the school were to comply with a new federal mandate intended to prevent discrimination against LGBTQ+ students, it would “suffer harms to its educational mission, free speech, and religious exercise.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in May announced that it was broadening its definition of sex-based discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and said schools and other qualifying organizations would need to adjust their nondiscrimination policies accordingly to receive funding from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), including for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The ADF complaint, which named President Biden, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried – a Democrat running to replace Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in November – as defendants, argued that the new rule was “threatening Grant Park Christian Academy’s ability to feed hungry children.”

The lawsuit alleged that the school in following the new mandate would be unable to maintain sex-separated facilities like restrooms for boys and girls “based on their biological differences,” enforce its uniform policy or “refrain from using pronouns that do not correspond to biological sex.”

Grant Park Christian Academy under the new rule would also no longer be able to draw its workforce from a pool of individuals who “share and live out its religious convictions,” according to the complaint.

The school was informed by members of the Biden administration and Fried’s office on Friday that its request for religious exemption would be granted and it would continue to receive funding to serve free meals to its students for the upcoming school year, ADF attorneys said Monday. An emergency hearing scheduled for August 11 will be postponed.

“It shouldn’t have taken a lawsuit to get the government to respect religious freedom,” ADF Legal Counsel Erica Steinmiller-Perdomo said in a statement. “Now, provided the government follows through and approves Grant Park Christian Academy’s application and confirms its exemption, this private school can continue feeding dozens of children healthy meals every day.”

Steinmiller-Perdomo added that the ADF will “defend other public and private schools across the country who remain under the burden of this unlawful mandate that violates religious beliefs.”

The administration’s rule has been the subject of controversy among mostly conservative officials since it was announced in May.

In July, the attorneys general of 22 states sued the Biden administration over the new mandate, which they said was unlawful, in part because it is “based on a misapplication of U.S. Supreme Court precedents.”

“We all know the Biden administration is dead-set on imposing an extreme left-wing agenda on Americans nationwide,” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), who is leading the lawsuit, said last month. “But they’ve reached a new level of shamelessness with this ploy of holding up food assistance for low-income kids unless schools do the Left’s bidding.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi extends remote voting for House members

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extended remote voting for House members on Tuesday, allowing lawmakers to vote by proxy until the end of September.

In a letter to colleagues, Pelosi said House members will be permitted to vote by proxy through Sept. 26 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“In light of the attached notification by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Office of Attending Physician, that a public health emergency is in effect due to a novel coronavirus, I am hereby extending the “covered period” designated on January 4, 2021, pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, until September 26, 2022,” Pelosi wrote in the letter.

The House was slated to end remote voting on Aug. 12 had Pelosi not extended it.

House Democrats first instituted proxy voting in May 2020 as a way to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pelosi has since extended the covered period for remote voting a number of times, citing “the public health emergency due to the novel coronavirus.”

Proxy voting can only be authorized 45 days at a time.

Lawmakers have used the opportunity to vote by proxy over the past two-plus years.

The extension comes even as the Capitol has nixed other coronavirus-related measures. The building no longer requires masks to be worn, and tours have resumed.

A number of lawmakers, however, have tested positive for the virus in recent weeks.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has vowed on a number of occasions to do away with proxy voting if Republicans take control of the House in the November midterm elections.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why the Inflation Reduction Act is an economic winner for rural America

Last week, my ranch — which has been in my family for five generations — and the home my grandfather built were utterly destroyed in a wildfire that claimed two other homes and more than 15,000 acres of rangeland. Fueled by climate-change-induced drought, heat and wind, the blaze spread fast and hot. It was just like the fires in California you see on the news, but in the unlikely setting of Nebraska cattle country. 

I’m a volunteer firefighter in the tiny 150-person town of Bluff, Utah, so I know enough about wildfire to be sure there was nothing that could have saved the ranch. Growing up, we never even worried about these kinds of blazes. But today, the vegetation is drier, the weather is hotter and these disasters are an increasingly frequent reality. 

My family’s story is a brutal example of why rural America has to prepare for more extreme weather and be a part of our collective response to climate change. The good news is that help is coming in the form of major legislation currently pending in Congress, the Inflation Reduction Act. The bill could be a real economic winner for rural communities, but only if it’s passed and only if it’s implemented with engagement from fly-over country.

First off, the bill would invest $20 billion in family farmers and ranchers, the backbone of our rural economies. This will create opportunities to improve soil health, increase crop yields, reduce fertilizer costs, increase resilience to extreme weather and diversify income streams. These agricultural practices can improve farmers’ bottom line and are good for air and water quality, too.

Second, there are major cost savings for rural America through $10 billion in funding for electric cooperatives to invest in cheap, renewable energy.  This will make it possible for coops — which supply electricity to 42 million people, including 92 percent of persistent poverty counties — to follow the path taken by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative in rural New Mexico. 

With many energy suppliers jacking up costs, Kit Carson announced in July it would be cutting customers’ energy bills by as much as 25 percent. How? Starting this summer, 100 percent of the co-op’s daytime energy will come directly from the sun, thanks to their foresight in building solar generation in their community. The Inflation Reduction Act will make it much easier for other co-ops to do the same and return money to their customers’ bank accounts.

Beyond these investments, the bill would provide tools for rural families and small businesses to reduce energy and transportation costs. The average homeowner could save $1,800 each year by taking advantage of the bill’s incentives for efficiency upgrades, electric vehicles and solar. There’s also $40 billion for U.S. manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and critical minerals, bringing home good-paying jobs to help rural communities that have suffered from outsourcing.

Finally, back to wildfire. Anyone who has lost a farm, ranch or home knows the economic and emotional impact. Insurance just can’t cover the real costs for homeowners or our broader economy. The bill would  invest $5 billion in sustainable forestry to help prevent others from suffering my family’s fate. But we know the risks of wildfire as well as crop-killing droughts and floods — and they will continue to get worse as the planet heats up. 

Ultimately, rural communities can be a roadblock to climate progress or a crucial team player advancing our mutual success. The Inflation Reduction Act is a huge step for empowering rural climate leaders and advancing our national climate goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 44 percent. All this without increasing taxes for hard-working Americans, family farmers or small businesses. Instead, it stops corporations from using loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. 

There’s a lot else about the bill worth supporting. It reduces our federal deficit, fights inflation by reducing energy and health care costs, as well as helping millions of Americans save money on prescription drugs. But my mind is on my family’s ranch and how I don’t want anyone else to go through what we did this past week. 

The potential for these investments to transform our trajectory on climate change depends on whether or not rural folks are supported in accessing and implementing the opportunities this bill offers. This is a real issue, as decades of disinvestment have left rural areas with little capacity to navigate federal funding processes and programs. 

Our representatives in government and the philanthropic community must ensure rural communities are central to our collective solutions for climate change. The fire and its impacts have spread to our communities, and the road to climate progress runs straight through rural America.

Josh Ewing is the director of the Rural Climate Partnership, which seeks to energize rural-led solutions on climate. He’s also a volunteer firefighter and EMT, based in the tiny town of Bluff, Utah. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Depression and anxiety led to weight gain among people living with obesity during pandemic

People living with obesity who experienced high levels of depression, anxiety and stress reported gaining the most weight during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new study. 

“The COVID-19 pandemic is a fascinating model for individual and social stress and showed that changes in mental health can really preclude people from maintaining a healthy body weight,” Jaime Almandoz, associate professor of Internal Medicine in the Division of Endocrinology at The University of Texas Southwestern and the study’s author, said in a media release. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows around 42 percent of Americans are living with obesity.  

For the study, researchers surveyed more than 400 people – all had been seen at one of three clinics for obesity in the previous two years – between March and November 2021 as the delta variant surged.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

Researchers found most participants gained 4.3 percent of their body weight, while almost one-third gained more than 5 percent. Some participants gained more than 25 percent, according to the research.  

Almost half of the participants lived in households with an income greater than $75,000, which Almandoz said shows these “stresses are likely amplified in the general population.” 

Although diet and exercise played a major role in participants weight gain, researchers found mental health issues were a major driver among those who gained the most.  

“Our findings underscore the complexity of obesity; it’s not just about telling people to eat less and move more,” Almandoz said. “There’s a mental health aspect that has to be integrated into treating the whole person as well.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Pregnancy as servitude: reframing the abortion question

As the struggle for a woman’s right to govern her own body moves from the federal to the state level, anguish and anger persist — but the argument needs to change. 

If, as Justice Samuel Alito emphasizes as the central thesis of the Dobbs decision, the constitution is silent on abortion, it is explicit on involuntary servitude. And on the definition of involuntary servitude Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the Supreme Court in the 1988 United States v Kozminski decision, formulated the essential tests: involuntary servitude includes not only physical but “legal coercion,” a consequence that will be imposed under anti-abortion laws passed by several states. 

This strong constitutional basis for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is not addressed in Justice Alito‘s opinion. To force a woman to sustain maternal labor is to ignore the literal meaning of the words “involuntary servitude” — and to imagine a far different context from the slavery in which the constitutional language originated. 

Too little weight has been given to the constitutional protection against involuntary servitude. It is banned as an evident corollary to the slavery proscribed in the 13th Amendment to the federal Constitution. Some 20 state constitutions include parallel provisions. Indeed, Colorado has recently joined Nebraska and Utah by eliminating all exceptions to the ban on such servitude.  (The federal and some states’ constitutions permit involuntary servitude in cases where a person has been lawfully convicted of a crime.) 

In the fluid politics developing among the states, Tennessee is an interesting case. In 2014, voters amended the constitution to make clear that it offered no affirmative right to abortion and authorized the legislature to enact statutes on the subject. They left in place the state constitutional ban on involuntary servitude. In November of this year, they will vote on a proposal to strengthen that prohibition by removing language allowing for the possibility of using such servitude as a criminal punishment — joining Colorado and other states in that camp. 

It is difficult to conceive of any involuntary servitude graver than a government’s compulsion of a woman to bear a child. Compulsory childbearing was a familiar practice in American slavery. Forced breeding of slaves was the widespread policy on numerous plantations, rooted less in the natural passions of humans than in the economic calculations of slave masters. 

There were undoubtedly mixed reasons for encouraging pregnancies among slaves, including some accommodation of honest affections among the partners. It is likely that some slaveowners felt they were both being generous to slave couples and calming dangerous impulses by indulging inter-slave liaisons. Not all congresses among slaves were involuntary, but all of them took place in a general context of involuntary servitude. 

Uglier and more ignoble were the pregnancies arising from intercourse between masters and female slaves. It is possible to imagine that some master-slave relationships were tinged with genuine affection, but they were intrinsically corrupt and immoral. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings loved each other, but that did not alter the fundamental reality that they were bound together in coercion, a condition that as a general matter Jefferson profoundly condemned. His sense of personal hypocrisy must have been acute and soul-searing. 

The authors of the 13th Amendment and their imitators at the state levels could not have been unaware that the emancipation they established surely included freedom from forced pregnancies. That fact is a powerful premise for persuading courts that denying a woman the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should be a power denied to the state. It would offer petitioners a fresh basis for action against the state laws now encumbering the lives of women and their families. 

Among the occasions for initiating such action is the Mississippi law on which the Supreme Court has ruled. That state’s constitution is one of those, along with Georgia, Alabama and others where similar statutes are emerging, which contain guarantees against involuntary servitude. In framing challenges to such laws, it would be prudent to ask state courts to apply their standard against such servitude. The myriad tests probable among the states may well generate further recourse to federal adjudication but on novel constitutional principles.  

One needs to be clear that the balancing test with which courts have wrestled will not disappear. As painful as it is to weigh a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy against the state’s right to intervene in defense of an embryo, the contending values demand respect. Abortion in the second or third month is less problematic than abortion in the seventh or eighth month — and barring the most extreme danger to the life of the mother late-stage abortion becomes harder to support.   

Beyond safeguarding the mother’s health, there are ever-more-perplexing cases that pose excruciating choices. Over the years many states have recognized that cases of rape or incest may warrant terminating a pregnancy, with diseased or malformed fetuses presenting less clear-cur exceptions for enforced childbirth. But in all instances, citizens in a democracy should be horrified at the notion that government has the power to condemn a woman to complete a pregnancy and face the long-term burdens of childbearing and, barring adoption, child-rearing.   

These are circumstances in which justice is neither pristine nor hygienic. It can only aspire to approximation, but it should trust the women who bear children, not judges or legislators — who may otherwise become the new masters imposing involuntary servitude.

Alton Frye, a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, has worked and written on many constitutional issues, including as staff director for the late Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass.). 

Source: TEST FEED1

Albuquerque mother says Muslim community is 'terrified' after four killed in ambushes

A mother in Albuquerque, N.M., on Tuesday said the Muslim community is “terrified” and taking extra precautions, such as avoiding leaving the home late at night, after four Muslims have been shot and killed in ambushes since November.

Samia Assed, who knew two of the men killed, told CNN’s Brianna Keilar that “so many emotions [are] going through the community.”

“We are terrified, angry, upset,” she said. “Just seeing what has happened to our community in respect to these losses has further devastated us.”

On Nov. 7, 2021, Mohammad Ahmadi, a Muslim from Afghanistan, was killed in what police are now investigating as a connected series of brutal slayings. Ahmadi was shot outside a business he ran in the Albuquerque area.

Aftab Hussein was shot and killed on July 26, while Muhammad Afzaal Hussain was murdered on Aug. 1. Another young Muslim man was shot and killed on Friday in a shooting just before midnight.

Police say the murders may be linked to the same suspect, and have set up a tip line through Albuquerque Metro Crime Stoppers at 505-843-STOP.

Assed, a mother of nine children, told CNN she has implemented a curfew in her household and has changed up daily routines, including where they go in the neighborhood.

She said many people in the community are “afraid to go out” and are choosing to stay inside their homes as the manhunt continues and questions linger about the killings.

“Are we surveilled? Was this somebody within the community? Was this somebody from outside the community?” she said. “Absolutely the first thing that came to our minds is we better watch our footsteps.”

Authorities released photos of a vehicle they said has been used in all four shootings, which they described as a dark gray or silver four-door Volkswagen Jetta. Police are offering a $20,000 reward for information that can lead to an arrest.

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller (D) said police are increasing their presence in the community around mosques and Muslim-affiliated schools.

In a Twitter thread on Sunday, Keller said the “commitment to supporting our Muslim community cannot be broken.”

“We remember each of the victims and the family, friends, and community who knew and loved them,” he wrote. “We are outraged by these attacks and will not relent in our pursuit of justice for those we have lost.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Pence demands 'full accounting' from Garland on Mar-a-Lago search

Former Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday said the FBI’s raid of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence undermined public confidence in the justice system and called for a “full accounting” from Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“I share the deep concern of millions of Americans over the unprecedented search of the personal residence of President Trump,” Pence wrote on Twitter. “No former President of the United States has ever been subject to a raid of their personal residence in American history.”

“After years where FBI agents were found to be acting on political motivation during our administration, the appearance of continued partisanship by the Justice Department must be addressed,” he continued. “Yesterday’s action undermines public confidence in our system of justice and Attorney General Garland must give a full accounting to the American people as to why this action was taken and he must do so immediately.”

Trump announced on Monday a large group of FBI agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump faces multiple investigations focused on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, his business dealings and his handling of classified documents.

Eric Trump, the president’s son, said on Fox News on Monday evening that the search was focused on the latter. 

The National Archives reportedly asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to examine Trump’s handling of records at the end of his term, including whether the took classified documents to Florida.

The FBI and DOJ have both declined to comment on the raid.

Pence’s statement echoes other Republicans who have similarly called for Garland to answer questions about the raid. Some, like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), went further and called for the attorney general’s resignation.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) threatened to investigate Garland if Republicans take control of the House next year, telling him to preserve documents and “clear your calendar.”

Pence is one of multiple potential 2024 Republican presidential candidates that have expressed concerns over the raid, with other rumored contenders like Hawley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also weighing in.

The former vice president has made frequent appearances in early primary states and continues to endorse candidates running in the midterm elections, sometimes in opposition to Trump’s own endorsements.

Pence has urged his party to focus on a forward-looking agenda, contrasting with Trump’s consistent mentions of the 2020 election and unfounded claims of voter fraud.

Source: TEST FEED1

Rick Scott: Wray, Garland and Biden must 'take all questions' at news conference on Mar-a-Lago raid

Sen. Rick Scott (Fla.), the head of Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, on Tuesday called for FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland and President Biden to each give a press conference on the FBI’s raid of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property the day before. 

Scott told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo that the three need to “take all questions” to explain why the FBI conducted the raid and what each of them knew and when. 

“This should scare every American,” he said. “Until we get answers, you should have unbelievable concern.” 

Scott joins a chorus of Republicans who have lambasted the raid as taking place for political reasons as Trump, who is the subject of investigations in multiple jurisdictions, considers another run for the presidency in 2024.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said that Republicans would launch an investigation into the Justice Department if the GOP retakes control of the House in the midterm elections. 

The raid took place on Monday, reportedly related to documents sought by the National Archives that Trump should have turned over after leaving the White House. The documents reportedly included some containing classified material. 

Scott, who serves as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Republicans currently have no power to force anything to happen other than to ask questions because the party does not currently control either house of Congress. He said Democrats will not conduct an investigation, so Republicans need to retake majorities to make Americans “more comfortable” that the government “is not out to get them.” 

“And whether you’re Republican, Democrat or independent, you should be worried,” Scott said. “If this is where our government works from now on, if you’re going back [and] forth who’s in power and they’re going to go after their opponents, this is a tough place to live.”

Source: TEST FEED1