NOVEMBER 23 THROUGH 26, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/app-news-section/quickly-catch-up-on-the-days-news-november-23/index.html
Quickly catch up on the day's news
By Erica Hernandez, CNN
Updated 2:02 PM ET, Fri November 23, 2018

(CNN)Here's what you might have missed Friday on CNN:
-- Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi said Friday he is in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert Mueller's office. Corsi could face any number of charges potentially related to false statements he made about his relationship with WikiLeaks and Stone.
-- As President Donald Trump considers replacing his chief of staff, Nick Ayers has emerged as a top contender, multiple people familiar with the situation told CNN. Ayers, who is Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, is young, rich and loyal to Trump.
-- Dolce & Gabbana is facing a major crisis in China, where top e-commerce sites are dumping its products over accusations of racism. It all started with an advertisement.
-- New details are emerging in the case of the American who is believed to have been killed by members of the isolationist Sentinelese tribe on a remote island in the Bay of Bengal. In his diary, John Allen Chau wrote of returning to the island to continue his attempts at conversion even after a tribesman shot at him with a bow and arrow.
-- Former US Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota took to Facebook on Thanksgiving morning to reflect on "the experience of women in this country" almost a year after he resigned from the Senate following allegations of sexual misconduct. Read what he had to say here.
-- Taco Bell is now open in London -- serving tacos AND beer. The four new British locations are part of a broader European expansion.
-- Don't reach for that Vietnamese takeout quite yet. A multistate outbreak of listeria has been traced to a Houston manufacturer's Vietnamese ready-to-eat pork products.
-- If you've been putting off your household chores, this will surely motivate you. A Louisiana couple was cleaning up for Thanksgiving guests when they found a lottery ticket they'd purchased months earlier. It turned out to be worth $1.8 million.
-- Get ready to feel nostalgic. Disney released a first look at the new "Lion King," and we're feeling all the feels for this live-action remake.


LAST WEEK I PUT IN TWO OTHER STORIES ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, WHO ARE OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT TRIBES, AND IT IS SAD, BECAUSE NOT BEING SCHOOLED LIKE AMERICANS FROM DAY ONE, NOR VERY TRUSTFUL OF OUTSIDERS THE AUTHORITIES HAVE HAD CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE DEALING WITH THEM. THEY ARE TOTALLY ADAPTED TO THEIR ISOLATED WOODLAND HOMES. NOW A MISSIONARY NAMED JOHN ALLEN CHAU HAS BEEN KILLED WITH ARROWS, SO ONE OF THE TRIBESMEN MUST HAVE DONE IT, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO CLOSE OFF THEIR ENVIRONMENT FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD. THE GODS OF PROFIT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS ALSO, BECAUSE A TOURIST OUTFIT CALLED BAREFOOT IS NOW ADVERTISING AUTOMOBILE VISITS DOWN THROUGH THEIR VILLAGE CAUSING EVEN MORE DISRUPTION IN THEIR LIVES. ONE NIGHT CHAU PERSISTED IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THEM, STAYED ON THE ISLAND OVERNIGHT, AND WHEN THOSE WHO HAD BROUGHT HIM ONTO THE ISLAND CAME BACK, HE WAS DEAD ON THE BEACH, HIS BODY PIERCED BY ARROWS. NOBODY "BLAMES" THE NATIVE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT KNOWINGLY VICIOUS. HE PROBABLY ACCIDENTALLY VIOLATED ONE OF THEIR TABOOS. WHEN A GROUP LIKE THESE ARE BROUGHT UP IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CANNOT GO OUT TO THE WORLD AND THE OUTSIDERS DON'T OFTEN COME IN TO INTERACT WITH THEM, THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND EFFORTS TO COMMUNICATE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN INCIDENTS OF OUTSIDERS BOTHERING THEIR WOMEN IN THE PREDICTABLE WAYS. IT IS NOT BEYOND THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITY THAT THOUGH CHAU WAS A MISSIONARY, HE COULD HAVE TRIED TO INTERACT WITH ONE OF THE WOMEN. I HOPE NO HALF-INTELLIGENT AMERICANS DECIDE TO GO TO THE ISLAND AND TRY TO ATTACK THEM, OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46301059
John Allen Chau: What we could learn from remote tribes
By Gareth Evans & Roland Hughes
BBC News
4 hours ago

Video -- John Allen Chau was killed by the Sentinelese tribe

When American John Allen Chau was killed by an endangered tribe in India last week, it brought a renewed focus on some of the world's most isolated people.

Officials in India said Chau was a missionary keen to convert the protected Sentinelese people on the Andaman and Nicobar islands.

But the Sentinelese, who are fearful of outsiders, attacked Chau with bows and arrows.

Advocates for isolated communities, like London-based Survival International, say Chau's killing should act as a reminder that remote tribes need to be protected from the outside world.

And one anthropologist interviewed by the BBC said there was a risk such incidents could make people wrongly assume all tribes lived "nasty, brutish and short" lives.

In fact, experts have highlighted plenty of lessons the developed world could take from remote tribes. Here are just a few.

You can't have peace without equality
Image copyrightAFP
The Piaroa people, who number about 14,000, live near the Orinoco River in Amazonas State, Venezuela.

What could we learn from them?

It is possible to live in complete equality - and it can make for a peaceful community.

There's one catch: it involves becoming an anarchist. No government, no state, only the individual and their will to do as they please.

The Piaroa disavow violence, and don't punish children physically. They believe peace is achieved by dismissing concepts of ownership, competition, vanity and greed.

No sports are played, land isn't owned, no-one can order anyone else to work and there's a strong emphasis on learning from other people. Not that there's a deference towards elders - that would make society hierarchical, and would mean not everyone was equal.

The idea of the individual is the most important thing, although that emphasis doesn't foster selfishness. It is up to each individual to choose what they do, how they do it and when they do it, and they do not pass judgment on others' decisions.

In a 1989 essay, American-born professor Joanna Overing writes: "The Piaroa daily express to one another their right to private choice and their right to be free from domination over a wide range of matters, such as residence, work, self development, and even marriage."

Image copyrightAFP
And because this is a society of absolute equals, men and women share the same status (not that status is a thing).

Anyone who tries to conform to traditional images of manhood, like the hunter, is subject to pity and is seen to lack self-control.

Who was US man killed in remote islands?

The sad truth about uncontacted tribes

The idea of maturing into a man does not exist, Prof Overing writes. "Nor do Piaroa young men learn the self-regarding virtues of manhood that would set them as males against females, and, as such, superior to them.

"Each woman is mistress of her own fertility for which she alone is responsible: the community has no legal right to her progeny; nor does her husband if they should divorce."

You've got to find your own melody
Image copyrightGILL CONQUEST / JEROME LEWIS

The Bayaka are a group of hunter-gatherers who live in the rainforests of Central Africa.

What could we learn from them?

That you have to find your own place in society.

For the Bayaka, music forms a central part of their identity, and experts say the style they enjoy has even conditioned their behaviour.

"The music that the Bayaka sing are these dense polyphonies, meaning that each member… will be singing a different melody and by combining these you create a song," says Jerome Lewis, an anthropologist who has been studying the group for more than two decades.

Media caption Listen: Bayaka women singing in Congo-Brazzaville

He says the way in which each person sings their own melody reflects the great importance the Bayaka place on the individual.

"It trains you to be different and these societies highly value autonomy," he explains. "Once children can walk they are free to decide where they sleep and with whom they associate themselves.

"You don't have the right to ask anybody to do anything for you."

But when there are no leaders, and when everyone is free to be an individual, how do the Bayaka learn to work together? Once again, the answer lies in the music.

Spotlight turns on 'tribal tourism'

"The regular participation in this style of singing was what taught people the ways they would co-ordinate in normal, everyday, life," Mr Lewis explains.

"You have to hold your own melody while other people sing different melodies," he says. "In order to co-operate and be effective together you need to do something different.

"This is an autonomy in which people are very sensitive to the needs of others and to their right to be different."

Modern life, modern bodies
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption

A Yanomami girl in the Amazon rainforest in Venezuela

The Yanomami, an indigenous tribe living in the rainforests of northern Brazil and southern Venezuela, could help us better understand our own bodies.

What could we learn from them?
Research on the tribe, who were isolated from the outside world until at least the 1950s, has given new insights into how modern life could be changing the make-up of the human body.

A 2015 study examined a number of Yanomami villagers and revealed the most diverse collection of bacteria ever found in people, including some that had never been detected in humans before, scientists said.

They said it showed how modern diets, antibiotics and hygiene could be reducing the range of bacteria in our bodies.

"Perhaps even minimal exposure to modern practices… can result in a drastic loss in bacterial diversity," one of the study's authors, Jose Clemente, told the Toronto Star newspaper at the time.

He added: "With each step in Westernisation, we seem to be losing an amount of diversity."

How we can stop antibiotic resistance
Experts warn of 'post-antibiotic era'
The study has also added to our understanding of antibiotic resistance.

For years, medical professionals have warned that the overuse of antibiotics is making infections harder to treat by creating drug-resistant superbugs.

This study found that the Yanomami villagers had unique antibiotic-resistant genes, despite the fact they had never taken the drugs before.

It provided further evidence that the bacteria in our bodies can already resist antibiotics even before they have been attacked by them.

Slow down, take it easy
Image copyrightMARK PLOTKIN
Image caption
Dr Mark Plotkin with a chief from the Sikiyana tribe on the Brazil-Suriname border in October
Dr Mark Plotkin has spent 35 years studying how remote tribes across the Amazon use plants for medicinal purposes.

What could we learn from them?

A slower life is a happier life.

Quite apart from the medical discoveries (Dr Plotkin's limp, which American doctors were unable to help with, was cured by an Amazonian shaman, he says), Dr Plotkin says there is plenty to learn from the lifestyles of isolated communities.

"What we find is that people don't suffer from stress, heart disease, insomnia, and that they spend time with their families.

"We may not be ready to give up our iPhones and iPads and never eat Thai food again, but the life lessons are clear: slow down, don't spend time worrying about things you can't do anything about. I try to live my life along those prescripts."

The story of the 'world's loneliest man'
Dr Plotkin, who heads the Amazon Conservation Team advocacy group, said that while there was plenty that developed countries could learn from simpler lifestyles, he advised caution.

"There is a risk of us over-romanticising them, just as there are risks in accepting Jesus and that you are going to live forever, or in moving to a city and thinking you are going to have two cars and a computer.

"Don't over-romanticise how they live, but learn from it. Just like there are good things you can learn from Western religion.

"But just as we shouldn't over-romanticise indigenous people, we shouldn't demonise missionaries like [John Allen Chau]."


I DID RUN ACROSS THIS RACE REDUCTIONISM THEME LAST WEEK IN A COMPLAINT AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS. NOBODY IS QUITE AS DOWN ON SANDERS AS SOME BLACK PEOPLE -- NOT ALL, THOUGH. HE HAS BLACK ENTHUSIASTS ALSO. THE DEMOCRATIC CENTER ARE CLEARLY HIS ENEMIES, IN A DISTURBING NUMBER OF CASES. THEY THINK THAT SANDERS HAS NOT TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE'S ISSUES, I.E. HE IS THEREFORE RACIST, WHICH IS OF COURSE BILGEWATER. WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS (I LOVE THIS PHRASE) "THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER." I FUMED, CHAFED, SIGHED AND MOVED ON, AFTER WRITING A REBUTTAL, THAT IS.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/26/beware-race-reductionist
Published on
Sunday, August 26, 2018
by The Intercept

Beware the Race Reductionist
If you’re #online, like I am, you’re probably already familiar with the main argument. It goes something like this: If a policy doesn’t resolve racism “first,” it’s at worst racist, and at best, not worth pursuing.

byBriahna Gray
10 Comments

Crowds in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the The March for Jobs and Freedom, also known as the March on Washington for civil rights, on Aug. 28, 1963. (Photo: AP)

A hostage situation has emerged on the left. And progressive policies like Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, free public education, a Green New Deal, and even net neutrality, are the captives.

The captors? Bad faith claims of bigotry.

According to an increasingly popular narrative among the center-left, a dispiriting plurality of progressives are “class reductionists” — people who believe that economic equality is a cure-all for societal ills, and who, as a result, would neglect policy prescriptions which seek to remedy identity-based disparities.

Of course, race and class are so interwoven that any political project that aims to resolve one while ignoring the other does a disservice to both. As Senator Bernie Sanders I-VT, presumptive leader of the progressive movement, put it this spring when I asked him about the never-ending race versus class debates: “It’s not either or. It’s never either or. It’s both.”

From the full piece: "Ending racism is a necessary, critical goal. But that goal should be pursued in tandem with efforts to address the effects of racism. The wage gap, the health care gap, the education gap, the debt gap — all these disparities would be narrowed by progressive, intersectional economic programs. As popular opinion coalesces around these policies, it’s crucial that we not let our best impulses be weaponized against our interests, any more than conservatives weaponize the worst impulses of their constituents against theirs."

The fear that identity-based issues might be “thrown under the bus” in favor of more populist, “universal” policies is legitimate: The Democratic Party has certainly done as much in the recent past for causes less noble than class equality. But the irony is that anxiety over class reductionism has led some to defensively embrace an equally unproductive and regressive ideology: Race reductionism.

If you’re #online, like I am, you’re probably already familiar with the main argument. It goes something like this: If a policy doesn’t resolve racism “first,” it’s at worst racist, and at best, not worth pursuing.

According to one popular iteration of this theme, Medicare For All is presumptively racist and/or sexist because it won’t eliminate discriminatory point-of-service care, or fully address women’s reproductive needs if it’s not thoughtfully designed. Perhaps you remember Rep. James Clyburn’s claim that a free college and university plan would “destroy” historically black colleges and universities. Maybe you’ve heard that the minimum wage is “racist” because it “Kills Jobs and Doesn’t Help The Poor,” or that it’s an act of privilege to care about Wall Street corruption, because only the wealthy could possibly mind what the banks do with the mortgages and pensions of millions of Americans. Perchance you’ve even been pitched on the incredible notion that rooftop solar panels hurt minority communities.

Libertarian journalist Conor Friedersdorf recently entered the fray with a piece titled, “Democratic Socialism Threatens Minorities*.” His argument? That “top down socialism” (which progressives want just about as badly as they want top down capitalism) would create a tyranny of the majority and put minorities at risk. Completely ignoring the market failures of our current system, and eliding the widespread prejudice and violence black Americans face under capitalism, he concern-trolls* by imagining a world in which black women struggle to find suitable hair products. Of course, this is a world we already live in.

Friedersdorf, though, was merely building an addition on a house of cards first constructed by Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential primary campaign: “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” she famously asked, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

It was a daring and adroit deception: Ignore this structural salve that would upset the status quo, she implied, because it won’t resolve that more personal, more visceral issue which goes straight to the heart of your identity.

Notice that this trick is aimed at policies which would threaten significant corporate or entrenched interests: The insurance industry, the banking industry, the energy sector, lenders. As Berkeley Law professor and leading scholar on race Ian Haney-López observed as we discussed the motives behind this framing, mainstream Democrats, like Republicans, “are funded by large donors. Of course they’re concerned about the interests of the top 1 percent.” It’s almost as if the real agenda here isn’t ending racism, but deterring well-meaning liberals from policies that would upset the Democratic Party’s financial base.

Read the full article at The Intercept.
© 2018 The Intercept / First Look Media


https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2018/08/letters-democratic-socialism-threatens-minorities/567952/
THE CONVERSATION
Letters: Would Democratic Socialism Really Threaten Minorities?
Readers debate the possible outcomes of an American move toward democratic socialism.
AUG 23, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- An advocate of socialism holds red roses, the symbol of the party.ALVARO BARRIENTOS / AP

Democratic Socialism Threatens Minorities
Earlier this month, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a critique of democratic socialism as defined by a recent article in the leftist magazine Jacobin. “Socialists,” he argued, “are attuned to the ways individuals are vulnerable in capitalism but blind to ways that it frees us from the preferences of the majority. Nearly all of us would hate abiding by the will of the majority on some matters.”

I read Conor Friedersdorf’s article on young people and socialism with great interest. In assuming that the only way for marginalized groups to access needed goods and services is to pay for them, he reveals his blind spots. One, he doesn’t engage with the fact that markets are frequently coercive, with different prices and expectations depending on your gender and race (just look at the wealth of research on job discrimination against applicants with “black names,” for instance).

More importantly, he seems not to realize that other options besides buying things exist. He presents a false dichotomy between dystopian majority control and “free” markets. But there are real historic and present possibilities for the production of goods and services for reasons other than the profit motive, from egalitarian community “time banking” to Wikipedia’s open community of editors to groups like the Four Thieves Collective that make their own medicines in resistance to Big Pharma. These aren’t market solutions. Indeed, they will continue to thrive—and, quite likely, thrive better—in a society with a strong social safety net for all its citizens.


MORE STORIES

Democratic Socialism Threatens Minorities
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

The Hunger for a Bold Socialism
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

Letters: What’s the Right Time to Eat Thanksgiving Dinner?
MARA WILSON

Letters: ‘I Want to Grow Up to Be Someone That Fights for Families Like Yours’

Adora Svitak
Berkley, Calif.

Anyone trying to argue for “democratic socialism” in the United States today, even if well meaning and reasonably thoughtful, is acting out their own fantasies rather than looking at the reality of the current state of power relations in America. The most extreme change in power relations within some realm of possibility would be a social democracy, meaning a viable public sector that could substantially reduce some inherent consequences of capitalism.

At this point, we don’t even have a functioning public sector at the federal level. Since Ronald Reagan, the public sector has been maligned, privatized, and underfunded—except for the military-industrial complex—and intentionally allowed to deteriorate so it cannot work effectively and efficiently. If politics in America restored the viability of the public sector and our democratic institutions, it could be the basis for establishing some aspects of social democracy. Arguing for democratic socialism needlessly provides an easy target for attacks against ideas not even remotely possible to manifest themselves in vitally needed public policies and programs.

Arthur T. Himmelman
Minneapolis, Minn.

The tyranny of the majority is well understood by most, and a bill of individual rights—of speech, religion, assembly, press, etc.—is a feature of all constitutional government.

The classical definition of socialism—worker ownership of the means of production—has never been tried. The Soviets’ government by vanguard failed and fell into atrocity for the reasons Conor states. Had individual rights been an essential element of the USSR, enforceable through the courts, we may have seen a much different outcome; but it is absurd to speculate.

All organization tends toward concentration of power in the service of efficiency. A cabal of self-interested corporations may conspire to rig prices—the actual legal definition of “collusion,” by the way—or otherwise dominate a market for a certain category of products. The competition that Conor lauds in capitalism is in reality often quashed through influence exerted by market dominance. Thus capitalism’s main advantage—innovation and improvement of products and prices—is often crippled or stopped. A far more sensible choice than competition for capitalists is collusion.

The answer is hiding in our hopelessly illogical and painfully pragmatic system of regulated capitalism. We must allow for the raising of money for good ideas—markets—but enforce protections against conspiracies in restraint of trade—collusion. This is sadly just as dependent upon the individual character of the enforcers and the transparency of the system as in the socialist tyrannies cited; we are living through a period of great corruption and degeneration of honorable business exchange. This is a result of fear and mistrust, most of it justified by experience, and requires a solution that renders theft and exploitation impossible. Capitalism is a powerful engine for innovation and personal freedom, but it must be controlled by honest men governed by honest laws.


John Leone
Pasadena, Calif.

Conor Friedersdorf’s piece on minorities and democratic socialism is outstanding. He draws a straight line from political intent to social failure in general and social catastrophe for minorities in particular.

Posing the question he did—What if the popular vote is pro-Trump rather than anti-Trump, then what do you do?—is critical.

Harry Chernoff
Great Falls, Va.

Friedersdorf argues against democratic socialism and in favor of free-market capitalism on the grounds that the former will more or less let loose a wild tyranny of the majority that will cripple leftists’ ability to get the things they want. This entire idea is premised on Friedersdorf’s own inability to conceive of any system of productive control that is neither hierarchical nor centralized. This despite the fact that such a system is explicitly what democratic socialists are calling for.

This is where his argument starts to take on some aspects of bad faith. He picks and chooses what various issues he thinks will get leftists mad enough to denounce democratic socialism in preference of free-market capitalism without taking into account how his own free-market capitalism impacts those issues, both historically and contemporaneously. For example, he lays at socialism’s feet the atrocities of the Soviet regime, as though what they did was somehow essentially socialist and thus a clear strike against such a system. Where is the similar denunciation of capitalism for the role it played in the near genocide of the Native American population and continued exploitation of black and brown people the world over? What about slavery and the atrocities associated with the global slave trade? The job that a global economy has done on the environment alone should be enough to make any capitalist seriously reconsider their position, but in Friedersdorf’s accounting of things, it is the Soviet totalitarianism of the mid-20th century that should make socialists turn coat.

The question that the democratic socialists are trying to answer is, What system of government or economic organization can right the evils of historic capitalism, and give us fulfilling lives with meaning? Friedersdorf doesn’t even pretend to answer this question, instead using a sleight of hand to reframe the question as: Can democratic socialism really work in the way it is intended to? A fine question, to be sure, but one that he is wholly unequipped to answer given the position he took in this article as a capitalist ideologue.

Nathaniel Bohn
Washington, D.C.

Interesting article. Yet another reason for democracies to start redistributing more wealth, and soon. Personally, I don’t think any of this is likely to happen. The risk of fascism today is far greater than that of Soviet-style communism. But, you never know. It’s not like it’s never happened. In any case, the remedy for both diseases is the same: Roosevelt-style New Deal redistribution.




Catherine Mickus-Beziat
Irvy-sur-Seine, France

Conor Friedersdorf replies:
To Adora Svitak: Free markets are not a cure-all for the prejudices of companies or individuals participating in them. And goods produced by organizations and people for reasons other than profit are a vital part of any healthy society. I celebrate them. What’s more, I hope the United States moves toward a much stronger social safety net for all of its citizens. But none of those points of agreement with the writer undercut the main claim in my article: that democratic socialism as it was described in the referenced Jacobin article would pose significant risks and material losses to minority groups of all sorts.

To Arthur T. Himmelman: The public sector in the United States functions much worse than that of some countries I’ve visited—Germany, Japan, and Denmark come to mind—but compare it to the public sectors of Italy or Mexico and one begins to see that the ideology of Ronald Reagan is perhaps not the primary factor that dictates public-sector performance. A similar insight is reached after reflecting on cities like Los Angeles, with high taxes, left-leaning voters, and frustrating dysfunction in the public sphere. That isn’t to absolve conservatives of their role in the dysfunction often evidenced at the federal level—including the military-industrial complex!—but something more than money and desire are needed to achieve success.

John Leone is correct in many of his pronouncements—the status quo is indeed one in which those entrusted with preventing rent-seeking*, industrial collusion, monopoly, and other such ills are failing to fulfill their responsibilities, sometimes for the most corrupt reasons. Remedying those failures ought to be a shared project for reformers on the left and right.

One qualification: If forced to choose between corrupted capitalism of the sort we live under now or corrupted socialism as it has actually manifested, I’d choose the devil I know for its relatively dispersed power and correspondingly lower body count.

To Nathaniel Bohn: As it happens, I am glad to denounce both mass genocide and slavery.

Bohn observes that one question democratic socialists are trying to answer is, “What system of government or economic organization can right the evils of historic capitalism?” But if the evil referred to is the near genocide of indigenous people—an evil that transpired not only under American capitalism but also (for example) Spanish monarchy—the answer is that nothing can right that evil, but that thankfully, no explorer colonialists will ever again “discover” and then destroy an indigenous civilization. If the evil referred to is American slavery, then the system of government and economic organization that could right it was a Civil War fought and won by the capitalist, republican North; the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and civil-rights laws that defeated the evil of Jim Crow. Our system has lots of problems still—and there are promising solutions to almost all of them that can be achieved with known reforms, a course much preferable to a revolutionary change to a new system and all the bloodletting that generally entails.

Even if capitalism were abandoned, democratic socialism would not necessarily be the best replacement. (It seems clear to me that had America embraced democratic socialism in 1865, or 1965, its racist white majority would still have used its numbers and power to subjugate its black minority.) With respect to the environment, however, the writer may be on stronger ground. It may be that global capitalism as it now exists will solve climate change through some mix of conservation, incentives to use less carbon, and technological advances that hasten a transition to new energy sources. But maybe not. Maybe free markets are so good at generating economic growth—and associated consumption as people are lifted out of poverty—that the long-term trajectory is darker, culminating in some sort of climate catastrophe. In comparison, I expect that democratic socialism would make tens or hundreds of millions of people much poorer than they’d otherwise be, and that would lead to lower consumption and carbon output.

To Catherine Mickus-Beziat: I say, bring back the Homestead Act (with appropriate modifications).

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/21/recurring-gop-myth-about-john-mccains-no-obamacare-repeal/
The recurring GOP myth about John McCain’s ‘no’ on Obamacare repeal
By Glenn Kessler
November 21, 2018

“Reforming Medicaid, one of the most broken forms of health care, by block granting it to the states, letting the states actually be innovative and coming up with better ways to run health care for lower income people. … That saved $800 billion. It failed by one vote in the Senate.”

— Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), House majority whip, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo, Fox Business News, Nov. 13, 2018

“We actually got rid of Obamacare, except for one vote.”

— President Trump, remarks during a Cabinet meeting, Aug. 16

“We had it done, but unfortunately, somebody decided to vote against that at the last moment, even though they campaigned for years saying they were going to do it.”

— Trump, remarks during a Cabinet meeting, Oct. 17

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) may have passed away in August, but his late-night thumbs-down vote that in 2017 blocked passage of a slimmed-down repeal of the Affordable Care Act continues to be an all-purpose excuse for Republicans.

We’ve documented in our database of President Trump’s false and misleading claims that the president repeatedly claims he was just one vote away from triumphally killing Barack Obama’s signature achievement. He’s made the claim at least 30 times.

Similarly, in a Wall Street Journal opinion article, Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.), who was defeated for reelection, made a similar “one-vote” claim to argue that McCain’s vote cost the Republicans the House.

But we were especially struck by Scalise’s recent statement that block-granting Medicaid — part of the repeal bill — failed by one vote in the Senate. He certainly impressed Bartiromo, who responded, “Wow.”

But this “one-vote” rhetoric is very misleading. Let’s explain what’s going on here.

The Facts
As anyone who has taken basic civics knows, the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass the same law before it is presented to the president for his signature. If the two bodies pass different versions of a similar law — as is often the case — negotiators must meet to hammer out an agreement, known as a conference report.

Then, both houses must vote on the final deal. There are many occasions when a lawmaker might vote for a bill initially, if only to advance it for further tinkering, but then vote against the final conference report.

In other words, there are no guarantees.

So where was Obamacare repeal in this process? Barely out of the starting gate.

The House narrowly passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), 217 to 213. An earlier version had failed, but amendments were added that brought along conservatives who had previously balked. The Senate, however, was not happy with the AHCA and crafted its own version of the law, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).

There were significant differences between the two versions, though both sought to reduce projected Medicaid spending by instituting a per capita cap on spending. (Scalise called it a block grant in the interview, but that was only an option for states.)

Currently, states and the federal government share in the cost of Medicaid, but the proposed laws would have capped federal funding per enrollee. There were differences in how each body would have calculated the caps, but the net result is that federal spending on Medicaid would have dropped significantly — $772 billion over 10 years in the BCRA and $834 billion in the AHCA.

That was too much for many senators, and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) introduced an amendment that would have restored $100 billion of Medicaid funding. But even after that was added, the BCRA was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 43 to 57, including “no” votes from nine Republicans.

McCain actually voted for this version of the bill, which needed 60 votes for passage because the Senate parliamentarian determined that certain provisions violated rules that otherwise would have allowed passage with 51 votes (50 votes plus the vice president casting the tiebreaker).

So that’s not one vote short. It’s 17 votes short.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a plan to repeal Obamacare and then delay implementation for two years while lawmakers worked out the details. That would have only needed 51 votes for passage, but it was rejected, 45 to 55, with seven Republicans (including McCain) voting against it.

Finally, there was a vote on “skinny repeal.” This would have repealed the individual and employer mandates but it would have left much of the rest of the law intact, including Medicaid expansion. In other words, this would not have put any cap on Medicaid spending. This is the bill that McCain, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted against, along with all Democrats, so it only had 49 votes.

Even if it had passed, the differences between the AHCA and the skinny repeal would have been stark and perhaps insurmountable. Given the votes on the floor, Senate negotiators would not have been empowered to accept a major cap on Medicaid spending — and if the bill included that, it probably would have gone down in defeat in the Senate. (Similarly, a bill without a cap on Medicaid spending might have lost conservative votes in the House.) McCain had said he voted against the skinny repeal because he wanted the legislation to go through a regular committee process, so a jammed-together conference process might not have won him over.

“One reality about conference committees is that, technical restrictions aside, they can accept or reject almost any provision. So it is at least possible that if the bill had gone to conference, they might’ve been able to add that provision,” said Norman Ornstein, congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “I would be dubious that the Senate conferees, knowing the unpopularity of the provision, would have gone along.”

Lauren Fine, a spokeswoman for Scalise, insisted that it was possible that the Medicaid provision could have survived if the bill had gone to conference. “The Medicaid provision was in the House-passed AHCA bill,” she said. “The McCain ‘no’ vote ended the possibility of going to conference, where that provision would have been part of the negotiations on melding the House and Senate versions.”

When we expressed doubt on that outcome, she responded: “You have no idea how a conference committee would have absolutely turned out, and that Whip Scalise is certainly as informed as anyone else to speculate what would or would not be decided in conference committee.”

The Pinocchio Test
Even if McCain had supported the skinny repeal, lawmakers still would have had to negotiate a compromise agreement. Then passage would have been needed in both chambers, which was not assured, given the narrow margin for passage of the House bill.

So at a minimum, it is misleading to say that the Obamacare repeal was just one vote short, as Trump often does. But in the case of the specific Medicaid provision touted by Scalise, it was 17 votes short even with a $100 billion sweetener. There’s a slim possibility some sort of Medicaid funding reduction would have emerged if there had been a conference agreement, but nothing of the size — $800 billion — claimed by Scalise.

Bartiromo was certainly fooled by Scalise’s language, which is why it is important for politicians to be precise about what took place.

Three Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles

Share the Facts
Washington Post Rating:
Three Pinocchios
“Reforming Medicaid, one of the most broken forms of health care, by block granting it to the states, letting the states actually be innovative and coming up with better ways to run health care for lower income people. … That saved $800 billion. It failed by one vote in the Senate.”
Steve Scalise
Member of Congress (R-La)
in an interview with Maria Bartiromo, Fox Business News
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Read More info
Share the Facts
Washington Post Rating:
Three Pinocchios
“We actually got rid of Obamacare, except for one vote.”
Donald Trump
President
remarks during a Cabinet meeting
Thursday, August 16, 2018


THE LACK OF PUBLIC ATTENTION TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE BY THE TYPICAL US CITIZEN IS ONE OF THE REGRETS OF MY LIFE. IT IS SAD THAT IN A COUNTRY WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF GOOD MEDICAL CARE, WE FIND IT SO HARD TO GET ANY. PEOPLE STILL PREFER TO SCORN THOSE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE UNLESS IT HAPPENS TO BE A PERSON WHO WAS MUCH BELOVED. IF ONES' BROTHER DEFINES FOR HIMSELF THE LENGTH OF HIS LIFE IN THAT WAY, ITS' A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY. WHEN THE "DEGENERATE BUM" LYING IN A CITY DOORWAY CUTS HIS THROAT, WHO CARES? HE WAS A DEGENERATE BUM.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-46320575
Young people in North East 'not given mental health help'
NOVEMBER 24, 2018 9 minutes ago

PHOTOGRAPH -- FAMILY HANDOUT
Image caption
Durham University student Alexandra Wilshaw died in March

Young people in the North East are not receiving help to tackle their mental health problems, a commission has concluded.

Tyne and Wear Citizens Commission on Mental Health said they were found to be struggling for support.

It warned the issue is often seen as being a "lower priority" than other health services.

The mother of a Durham University student who took her own life earlier this year has backed its findings.

The commission, led by campaign group Tyne and Wear Citizens, received more than 300 testimonies from people across the North East.

It said many reported having "few, if any, places to turn for help" in schools and colleges.

Its report calls for new measures within educational establishments as well as greater co-ordination between NHS health trusts and similar organisations.

Image copyrightFAMILY HANDOUT
Image caption
Mrs Fowkes said Alexandra was a "happy, bubbly" person
Carole Fowkes lost her daughter, Alexandra Wilshaw, in March.

The 21-year-old, of Bourne, Lincolnshire, had been treated for anxiety but neither friends nor family thought she was suicidal.

Although Mrs Fowkes has praised Durham University's response to her daughter's death, she says "there needs to be a lot more support for youngsters".

She said: "You analyse every single thing - every phone call, everything that she said.

"The feelings, you can't describe them. It's horrible.

"If people have friends and they think something is not right then get them to talk to somebody."

Alexandra's college has set up a trust in her memory in an effort to raise awareness of mental health issues.

The new report also calls for the training of "mental health first-aiders", a step the university has already initiated.

Caroline Dower, head of the university's counselling service, said: "I want them to be able to spot the signs of someone in distress and to know what to do in the first instance and where to get specialist help."

Related Topics
BourneUniversity of DurhamMental health


CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALREADY HERE. WHAT IS SHOCKING TO ME IS HOW FAST THIS IS HAPPENING.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46325168
Climate change: Report warns of growing impact on US life
NOVEMBER 24, 2018 2 hours ago

Unchecked climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars and damage human health and quality of life, a US government report warns.

"Future risks from climate change depend... on decisions made today," the 4th National Climate Assessment says.

The report says climate change is "presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth".

The warning is at odds with the Trump administration's fossil fuels agenda.

Sounding an alarm
By James Cook, Los Angeles correspondent, BBC News

During a blast of icy weather in Washington this week, Donald Trump tweeted, "whatever happened to global warming?"

Now, without mentioning the president, his own scientists have answered their boss' question in comprehensive detail.

Global warming is here in the US, they say - now. It is already deadly serious and without urgent, dramatic change, it will be catastrophic.

Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
The report warns that the frequency of wildfires could increase if climate change is unchecked

This report is striking for two reasons. First, it is not abstract. It gives many specific examples - overwhelmed dams in South Carolina; failing crops in the parched Great Plains; a rise in insect-borne disease in Florida.

And, secondly, it majors on the economic impact, in effect challenging the White House's insistence on prioritising economic growth over environmental regulation.

With warnings about the effects on crumbling infrastructure, falling crop yields and decreasing labour productivity, the report sounds an alarm that climate change will soon cascade into every corner of American life.

The White House said the report - compiled with help from numerous US government agencies and departments - was inaccurate.

Spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said it was "largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that... there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population".

The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity.

What does the report say?
The US climate assessment outlines the prospective impacts of climate change across every sector of American society.

What is climate change?
Final call to halt 'climate catastrophe'

Risk of 'Hothouse Earth' despite CO2 cuts
"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many US states," the report says.

"Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century."

The report notes that the effects of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country, including more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events.

But it says that projections of future catastrophe could change if society works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and "to adapt to the changes that will occur".

What reaction has there been?
Environmental groups said the report underlined their demands for action.

Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the report's authors, said the report made it clear that climate change was not "some problem in the distant future".

"It's happening right now in every part of the country," she said.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
This bar in San Francisco had a climate change message during a summit in the city in September

That view was echoed by Abigail Dillen, president of environmental group Earthjustice.

"While President Trump continues to ignore the threat of climate change, his own administration is sounding the alarm," she said.

Former US Vice-President Al Gore, a prominent climate change campaigner, accused the White House of trying to bury the report by releasing it on Black Friday - the unofficial start of America's Christmas shopping season.

"Unbelievably deadly and tragic wildfires rage in the west, hurricanes batter our coasts - and the Trump administration chooses the Friday after Thanksgiving to try and bury this critical US assessment of the climate crisis," Mr Gore said.

"The president may try to hide the truth, but his own scientists and experts have made it as stark and clear as possible."

What does President Trump say about climate change?
In October, President Trump accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda", telling Fox News he was unconvinced that humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.

After taking office he announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement, which commits another 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers.

During his election campaign in 2016 Mr Trump said climate change was "a hoax". However he has since rowed back on that statement saying in a recent interview: "I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference."

How great is the climate threat?
A report released in October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the leading international body evaluating climate change - said it could only be stopped if the world made major, and costly, changes.

That means reducing global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and reducing coal use to almost zero and using up to seven million sq km (2.7 million square miles) for land energy crops.

If the world fails to act, the researchers warned, there would be some significant and dangerous changes to our world, including rising sea levels, significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops such as rice, maize and wheat.


I HAVE FOUND ANOTHER GREAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTICLE. I NEVER TIRE OF SEEING THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT HUMANS HAVE ADAPTED TO THEIR ENVIRONMENTS. READ THIS ONE.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-46329051
Ancient Egyptian tomb unveiled
NOVEMBER 24, 2018 1 hour ago

PHOTOGRAPH -- The treasures of an ancient Egyptian tomb, thought to be more than 3,500 years old, have been unveiled.

An archaeological mission, affiliated with France's University of Strasbourg, made the discovery in the Assasseef valley near the city of Luxor.

Two sarcophagi, each containing a mummy, were found. All are in perfect condition.

The archaeological dig also discovered around 1,000 funerary statues at the site.

The tomb is believed to date to the 18th Dynasty, which spanned from 1550 BC to about 1300 BC.

SCA secretary-general Mostafa Waziri said at a press conference on Saturday that the team made the find after working at the site since March.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image copyrightEPA
Image copyrightEPA
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image copyrightREUTERS
You may also like:
Egyptian mummification 'recipe' revealed
Mummies discovered in new Egypt tomb
'Oldest tattoo' found on Egyptian mummies


AN INTERESTING AMERICAN MINORITY – THE SIKHS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sikh-indian-americans-becoming-truckers-mintu-pandher-laramie-wyoming/
By JIM AXELROD CBS NEWS November 23, 2018, 6:38 PM
More than 30,000 Indian-American Sikhs have entered the trucking industry in 2 years

LARAMIE, Wyoming -- Here's what you might expect to see driving I-80 near Laramie, Wyoming: long stretches of highway framed by rolling hills and trucker after trucker making their runs, hauling everything from fuel to furniture. Billboards advertise where they can gas up.

What you might not expect is that the trucker in the next lane is wearing a turban. Even with unemployment at a nearly 49-year low, there is a record-high shortage of truck drivers.

This year, the turnover rate for truck drivers is 96 percent. More than 50,000 drivers are needed to meet the demand, and the shortage is forcing companies like Amazon, General Mills, Tyson Foods and others to hike up their prices to consumers.

But one group of drivers -- Indian-Americans who practice the Sikh faith, truckers like Mintu Pandher -- may well be a big part of the solution. More than 30,000 Sikhs have entered the trucking industry in the last two years.

axelrod-sikh-drivers-2018-11-23.jpg
Mintu Pandher CBS NEWS

"For Sikhs, they want to keep their articles of faith, turban, unshaven hair, beard, moustache -- it's a safety hazard for a lot of jobs that require it. So in trucking they can keep everything, and still make a decent living," Pandher said.

Pandher bought a used tractor-trailer 13 years ago. Now he owns nine rigs, plus a truck stop in Laramie.

With so many Sikh truck drivers, he even added a Sikh temple to his truck stop. And his kitchen offers Indian specials that attract new fans as well.

But it's more than a friendly truck stop that's drawing Sikhs to a career behind the wheel. Recruiting videos that look like something straight from Bollywood promise a glamorous future: fancy truck, nice car, a wife making food for the road. Pandher said it's "pretty much" made from reality.

"I mean the presentation can be a little eye-catchy, but you know that's the reality," Pandher said.

It's a prosperous reality for Mintu Pandher. People say the American dream is dead, but he said "it's not dead" at all.

In fact, if you ask him, it's humming along quite nicely on highways across the country.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email

Jim Axelrod
Jim Axelrod is the senior national correspondent for CBS News, reporting for "CBS This Morning," the "CBS Evening News," "CBS Sunday Morning," and other CBS News broadcasts.


https://www.sikhnet.com/pages/who-are-sikhs-what-is-sikhism
Who are Sikhs? What is Sikhism?
A short overview explaining the basic beliefs and practices of followers of Sikhism

PHOTOGRAPH -- Who are Sikhs? What is Sikhism? A short overview explaining the basic beliefs and practices of followers of Sikhism

The Sikh community invites all people to join them in bringing about mutual understanding and deep respect for all people.

Since Sept. 11th, Sikhs, like other Americans, have been grappling with grief and fear. But their fear is not only about another assault from outside. Many Sikhs have become victims of hate crimes because of their appearance. Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh American (Balbir Singh Sodhi), was killed on Sept.15 as a result of mistaken identity. Across America, the only people who wear turbans are followers of the Sikh religion. Sikhs are from Northern India (Punjab) and are neither Hindus nor Muslims.

Although Sikhism encourages self-defense, it pointedly teaches not to seek revenge or retribution, and teaches observers to be free of hatred.

Sikhs celebrating the Sikh new year in Toronto, Canada

Sikhs at a Glance

99 percent of people wearing turbans in the U.S. are Sikhs from India
Sikhs have been in the U.S. for over 100 years
There are roughly 700,000 Sikhs in the U.S. today
Sikhism is the world’s fifth largest religion with 25 million adherents worldwide
Sikhs believe in one God, equality, freedom of religion, and community service
Sikhs cover their uncut hair with a turban
The Sikh turban represents a commitment to equality and justice
Sikhism is a distinct religion, separate from Hinduism and Islam
Sikhism - The word Sikh (pronounced "sickh") means 'disciple' or 'learner.' The Sikh religion was founded in Northern India in the fifteenth century by Guru Nanak Dev Ji and is distinct from Islam and Hinduism. Sikhism is monotheistic and stresses the equality of all men and women. Sikhs believe in three basic principles; meditating on the name of God (praying), earning a living by honest means as well as sharing the fruits of one’s labor with others. Sikhism rejects caste and class systems and emphasizes service to humanity.

Turbans are worn to cover our long hair and with respect to God. Learn to recognize a Sikh turban. Sikhs have unshorn hair, beards and moustaches. The Sikh faith teaches us the humanitarian principles of freedom, equality, and justice - the same principles this great democracy is founded on. There are about 25 million Sikhs in the world. Sikhs have been in the United States for over 100 years. Sikhism recognizes the universal truths that underlie all human endeavors, religions and belief systems. The universal nature of the Sikh way of life reaches out to people of all faiths and cultural backgrounds, encouraging us to see beyond our differences and to work together for world peace and harmony.

History and Beliefs

The almost 25 million Sikhs worldwide constitute the fifth largest religion in the world. Despite almost a million Sikhs living in North America (USA and Canada), Sikhs are often confused as Arabs or Muslims. Sikhs arrived in North America in 1897 and played a pivotal role in the opening of the West and construction of the Panama Canal in 1904. In 1906, Sikhs established their first gurdwara, or place of worship, in the United States. 700,000 Americans and Canadians are Sikh and nearly every major city has a Sikh place of worship and community center.

The Sikh faith is five hundred years old. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, taught a message of love. He spoke of a universal God, common to all mankind, not limited to any religion, nation, race, creed, color, or gender. The Sikh religion is strictly monotheistic, believing in one supreme Creator, free of gender, absolute, all-pervading, and eternal. Sikhism views lfe not as a fall from grace, but a unique opportunity to discover and develop the divinity in each of us. Human rights and justice form a cornerstone of Sikh belief, and Sikh history features countless examples of Sikh Gurus and their followers making tremendous sacrifices for the cause of religious freedom and justice. More recently, Sikhs have been some of the most highly decorated soldiers of the British armed services during both World Wars. They played a significant role in the memorable battles of El Alamein in the Burma-China front and also in the allied assault in Italy. In India’s struggle for independence from the British, over two-thirds of all the Indians who were sentenced to life imprisonment or death were Sikh. This is in spite of the fact that Sikhs form less than two percent of India’s population


Guru Nanak surrounded by the successive 9 Guru's.

The Sikh Identity

In 1699, the tenth and last living Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, summoned his followers to the town of Anandpur in Punjab; over 80,000 came. According to history, Guru Gobind Singh appeared before his people, flashed a naked sword, and demanded a head. He repeated his call until five Sikhs volunteered. These five individuals came from different parts of India and from different castes. To these five, and subsequently to many others on that historic day, Guru Gobind Singh bestowed a new discipline, a creed to his Sikhs. The Guru initiated these five in the new order of the Khalsa and then, in a dramatic and historic gesture, they in turn initiated him. On that day, he gave the Sikhs a unique identity which includes five articles of faith:

unshorn hair as a gift of God and Guru and a mark of Sikh identity
a small comb for the hair
a steel bracelet which signifies a reality with no beginning and no end, and is also symbolic of a Sikh’s commitment to the ideals of his faith, much as wedding ring might indicate fealty and identity
a sword indicative of resolve and commitment to justice, and
knee-length breeches in keeping with the disciplined life-style of a Sikh


For the past 300 years, male Sikhs have been easily recognized by their long unshorn hair covered with a turban. Notably, in traditional Indian society only males of high caste or the elite, ruling class wore turbans. In requiring all Sikhs to don turbans, Guru Gobind Singh envisioned all individuals as noble. Sikh women adhere to the same life style, symbols, rules and conduct, but relatively few choose to wear turbans. Young Sikh boys, instead of wearing a turban, often cover their uncut hair, which is tied in a top-knot, with a simple piece of fabric.

Along with the aforementioned physical identifiers, Guru Gobind Singh went further in distinguishing Sikhs. In Indian society, an individual’s name reveals one’s caste and social status. Guru Gobind Singh freed Sikhs from the rigid caste system by ordering all Sikh males adopt the surname “Singh,” meaning a lion, and women use the surname “Kaur” meaning princess, thus shedding their caste identity. Each year, Sikhs worldwide commemorate and celebrate the historic events of Vaisakhi 1699 as a milestone in Sikh history when Guru Gobind Singh decreed the formation of the Khalsa and fashioned the nation of Sikhs.

The Sikh Scripture

Guru Gobind Singh (pictured to the right) also decreed an end to the line of Gurus in human form. The writings of the earlier Gurus were collated along with those of Hindu and Muslim spiritual figures whose teachings strongly resonated with Sikh beliefs. This collection of writings is known as Guru Granth Sahib, a uniquely ecumenical and eclectic collection of spiritual writings. For Sikhs, Guru Granth Sahib is the repository of all spiritual knowledge and authority. In temporal matters all authority rests with the Sikh community worldwide acting democratically and in mindful prayer with an awareness of the spiritual heritage which is embodied in the Guru Granth. Sikhs revere the ten Gurus, Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, because they delivered the divine word of the one, timeless God. The word “Guru” acquires, therefore, a very special meaning for Sikhs. It is reserved only for the ten Gurus who gave us the divine message and to this message contained in the Guru Granth Sahib.

The Gurdwara

The Sikh place of worship, or Gurdwara, is more than a place of worship. It has historically served as a refuge for the homeless and the destitute. Gurdwaras usually display the Nishan Sahib, a saffron-colored triangular flag bearing the khanda, the symbol of the Sikh faith. Visitors, irrespective of their religion, are offered shelter, comfort, and food. The prerequisites for entering a Gurdwara are removing shoes and covering one’s head with a handkerchief, scarf, or other cloth.
In a Gurdwara, no special place or seat may be reserved or set aside for any dignitary, as all are considered equals. The service consists of singing of the liturgy, as well as the exposition of Sikh history, tradition, and theology. Non-Sikhs are always welcome. Sikh gurdwaras all over the world usually run free community kitchens, which provide meals to all. These kitchens are run and funded by volunteers. In traditional Indian society, people of high and low caste were rigidly segregated. To combat this social problem, the Sikh community kitchen, or langar, requires everyone to sit side by side and eat together, thereby teaching the concept of equality by shattering all barriers of caste and class. Every major city in the United States and Canada has Sikh gurdwaras and they are open to all.

The Sikh Way of Life

Sikhism is a practical religion and Sikhs are a pragmatic people. The emphasis is on a leading a worldly, successful life as a householder and a contributing member of society, but with the mind attuned to an awareness of God. Sikhism rejects all distinctions based on caste, creed, gender, color, race, or national origin. For Sikhs, God is not found in isolation or by renouncing the world, but is attained as an active family member and member of one’s community. The word “Sikh” means student. Therefore, a Sikh is and remains a student of the meaning of life. The core values of Sikhism are derived from three equally important tenets: an honest living and an honest day’s work, sharing with others what God and life have given, and living life fully with an awareness of the divine within each of us. Sikhism enunciates a philosophical concept termed Miri-Piri, which means living a life with an active, strong sense of commitment to the world and humanity, governed and directed by a strong foundation and underpinning of spirituality. Thus, the Sikh ideal is to strike a perfect balance and integration of these two states of existence.

In matters that affect the Sikh community, Sikhs have throughout history followed a simple but effective mechanism whereby individual voices are heard and decisions reflect the current state of knowledge, information and technology. In all such matters, and in honor of the first five Sikhs who heeded the call of Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, the voice of the community is channeled through five initiated Sikhs selected and authorized to resolve issues and speak as the voice of the community. Sikhs believe that God and Guru pervade the congregation when five Sikhs act in mindful prayer. Decision making, thus, becomes a collective process. Sikhs do not have a priestly hierarchy with its associated ecclesiastical authority.

Women

The Sikh faith is committed to the equality of women, and necessarily so, as it defines God as gender neutral, perhaps one of the few major world religions to do so. There is no activity in a gurdwara or within the community that is permitted to a man but not to a woman. There is no religious function from which women are barred at any time of their lives.

Dietary Restrictions

Sikhs have no food taboos except those that stem from one simple injunction – a life of moderation in which we shun all that harms the body or the mind. Animal sacrifice is forbidden and so is the consumption of animals killed in such manner. This also means that all intoxicants – tobacco, alcohol or any mind altering “recreational” drugs – are forbidden.

Other Religions

Sikhism recognizes the universal truths that underlie all human endeavors, religions, and belief systems, though people differ in how they institutionalize those beliefs into a code of conduct and a way of life. Much as Sikhs love their religion, Sikhism is equally respectful and accepting of other ways of life and beliefs. Sikhism asks a non-Sikh to discover and live the essential message and meaning of his or her own religion so that a Christian can become a better Christian, Jew a better Jew, Hindu a better Hindu, while a Sikh becomes a better Sikh.

Adapted from “Sikhs and their Religion” by Dr. IJ Singh and from SALDEF.org


Explore Deeper on SikhiWiki
Understanding the Sikhs (CNN Video Interview)
Printable Brochures About Sikhism (Multiple Languages)


MADDOW BLOG
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/episodes

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 11/21/18
Despite denials, Trump ties to Saudi Arabia part of public record
Joy Reid reviews some of the deep connections Donald Trump has to Saudi Arabia even as Trump tries to deny those connections as he takes Saudi Arabia's side in the murder of U.S. resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Duration: 3:18


HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 11/21/18
Whitaker well placed to serve Trump's interests on Mueller probe
Nelson Cunningham, former federal prosecutor, talks with Joy Reid about the power Matt Whitaker has over the Mueller investigation as acting-attorney general, and how much he can do to protect Trump outside of public view. Duration: 10:10


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 11/21/18
Whitaker's past bodes poorly for criminal justice reform
Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor, talks with Joy Reid about what it means for how the Justice Department will be run that Matt Whitaker was criticized as a U.S. attorney for pursuing especially harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Duration: 6:57


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 11/21/18
Unusual suspense in Mississippi Senate run-off race
Donna Ladd, editor, CEO and co-founder of the Jackson Free Press, talks with Joy Reid about the unusual suspense in the Mississippi Senate run-off election as Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith's weakness as a candidate tests the depth of the state's redness. Duration: 9:23