PISA Test Scores Cast Doubt on U.S. Education Efforts

An international exam shows that American 15-year-olds are stagnant in reading and math even though the country has spent billions to close gaps with the rest of the world.

‘It Just Isn’t Working’: PISA Test Scores Cast Doubt on U.S. Education Efforts
By Dana Goldstein
NYT, Dec. 3, 2019

The performance of American teenagers in reading and math has been stagnant since 2000, according to the latest results of a rigorous international exam, despite a decades-long effort to raise standards and help students compete with peers across the globe.

And the achievement gap in reading between high and low performers is widening. Although the top quarter of American students have improved their performance on the exam since 2012, the bottom 10th percentile lost ground, according to an analysis by the National Center for Education Statistics, a federal agency.

The disappointing results from the exam, the Program for International Student Assessment, were announced on Tuesday and follow those from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, an American test that recently showed that two-thirds of children were not proficient readers.

Over all, American 15-year-olds who took the PISA test scored slightly above students from peer nations in reading but below the middle of the pack in math.

Low-performing students have been the focus of decades of bipartisan education overhaul efforts, costing many billions of dollars, that have resulted in a string of national programs — No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, the Common Core State Standards, the Every Student Succeeds Act — but uneven results.

There is no consensus on why the performance of struggling students is declining. Education experts argue vociferously about a range of potential causes, including school segregation, limited school choice, funding inequities, family poverty, too much focus on test prep and a dearth of instruction in basic skills like phonics.

About a fifth of American 15-year-olds scored so low on the PISA test that it appeared they had not mastered reading skills expected of a 10-year-old, according to Andreas Schleicher, director of education and skills at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which administers the exam.

Those students, he said, face “pretty grim prospects” on the job market.

Daniel Koretz, an expert on testing and a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said recent test results showed that “it’s really time to rethink the entire drift of policy reform because it just isn’t working.”

Because the United States lacks a centralized system for teacher training or distributing quality instructional materials to schools, Professor Koretz said, states and districts did not always effectively carry out the Common Core or other initiatives.

Because the United States lacks a centralized system for teacher training or distributing quality instructional materials to schools, Professor Koretz said, states and districts did not always effectively carry out the Common Core or other initiatives.

The Common Core, which began almost a decade ago, has been a national effort by governors, state education chiefs, philanthropists and school reformers to enrich the American curriculum and help students compete with children around the world. Its priorities include increasing the amount of nonfiction reading, writing persuasive essays using evidence drawn from texts and adding conceptual depth in math.

The effort became a political lightning rod, with the left opposing a new generation of standardized tests tied to the Core, and the right seeing the effort as an unwelcome intrusion into local control of schools. Some states that initially signed on to the Core later rejected it.

Even in those places that stuck with the effort, the curricular changes that flowed from the Common Core could be made without necessarily improving the quality of teaching, Professor Koretz said.

He suggested a renewed focus on classroom instruction, and on providing students and families who are poor, or are recent immigrants, with support like social workers and translators.

The most recent PISA test was given in 2018 to 600,000 15-year-olds in 79 education systems around the world, and included both public and private school students. In the United States, a demographically representative sample of 4,800 students from 215 schools took the test, which is given every three years.

Although math and science were also tested, about half of the questions were devoted to reading, the focus of the 2018 exam. Students were asked to determine when written evidence supported a particular claim and to distinguish between fact and opinion, among other tasks.

The top performers in reading were four provinces of China — Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang. Also outperforming the United States were Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, Estonia, Canada, Finland and Ireland. The United Kingdom, Japan and Australia performed similarly to the United States.

Among the countries that demonstrated improvement on the test were Portugal, Peru and Colombia.

There were some bright spots for the United States: Achievement gaps between native-born and immigrant students were smaller than such gaps in peer nations.

Mr. Schleicher, of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said it was a common misconception that socioeconomic achievement gaps in the United States were much larger than those in the rest of the world. Three percent of American children from poor families were top performers in reading, compared with an average of 4 percent of poor children among O.E.C.D. countries.

In math, socioeconomic status explained 16 percent of the variation in American performance, similar to the average of 14 percent across O.E.C.D. nations.

Mr. Schleicher said that differences in school quality affected the performance of American students less than it affected the performance of students in many other nations — meaning that in the United States, there is more achievement diversity within schools than across schools.

Some education leaders said they saw no reason to drastically change policy directions.

William G. McCallum, a mathematician and one of the lead writers of the Common Core State Standards, said he remained hopeful that a strategy of rigorous standards, quality classroom materials and effective teacher training could improve student achievement.

He noted that Washington, D.C., which has been committed to the Common Core, had recently demonstrated impressive performance gains.

“Frustration is understandable,” he said of low test results. But, he added, “Maybe this is just a really hard problem.”

Dana Goldstein is a national correspondent, writing about how education policies impact families, students and teachers across the country. She is the author of “The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession.”

Trump impeachment & The End of the Rule of Law

US Democrats beat their drums over the sad demise of Rule of Law by Trump while they themselves are responsible for flouting the Law of the Land...

The End of the Rule of Law
By Chris Hedges
Truthdig 25 November 2019

Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Department of Justice and a constitutional scholar, has identified 12 impeachable offenses committed by Donald Trump. But, as he notes, many of these constitutional violations are not unique to the Trump administration. They have been normalized by Democratic and Republican administrations. These long-standing violations are, for this reason, ignored by Democratic Party leaders seeking to impeach the president. They have chosen to focus exclusively on Trump’s attempt to get the Ukrainian president to open an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for $400 million in U.S. military aid and a visit by the Ukrainian leader to the White House. Ignoring these institutionalized violations during the impeachment inquiry, Fein fears, would legitimate them and lead to the death of democracy.

In a letter on Friday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also signed by Ralph Nader and Louis Fisher, Fein warns that Trump is “shattering our entire constitutional order.” He lists as the president’s most serious constitutional violations the “defiance of congressional subpoenas and oversight; spending billions of dollars on a southern border wall not appropriated for that purpose; continuing or expanding presidential wars not declared by Congress; exercising line-item veto power; flouting the Emoluments Clause; and, playing prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill any person on the planet based on secret, unsubstantiated information.”

But he also notes that many of these violations are not unique to Trump and were also carried out by Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

    “Many of the Democrats in the past have been complicit in these violations,” Fein said when I reached him by phone in Washington, D.C. “They have unclean hands. They have acquiesced in illegal surveillance, as revealed by Edward Snowden. The most serious constitutional violations are the ones that are institutional usurpations. These usurpations [by both parties] have permanently
weakened, if not eviscerated, the power of the legislature versus the executive.”

    “We have a Congress whose members, by and large, do not want the responsibilities the Constitution entrusts them with,” Fein continued. “They like to give away everything to the president and then clamor if something goes bad. The most worrisome constitutional violations are, unfortunately, ones many members of Congress rejoice in. It enables them to escape making hard choices that might compromise their ability to win reelection. But you can’t rely on a past dereliction to justify its perpetuation indefinitely.”

    “If we take a narrow approach to impeachment, that will mean that all the more egregious violations will be viewed as having been endorsed and not rebuked and successive presidents will feel they have a green light to emulate Trump on everything except a Ukrainian shakedown,” Fein said. “This is dangerous for the country. This could boomerang, even if we get rid of Trump, by endorsing these usurpations forever. This would be a return to a one-branch government like the monarchy we overthrew in 1776. The unwitting result is to further the [power of the] executive rather than diminish it, which is what should be happening.”

Bush and Obama bequeathed to us nine illegal wars, if we include Yemen. None were declared by Congress, as is demanded by the Constitution. Bush placed the entire U.S. public under government surveillance in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which makes it a crime for the government to surveil any American citizen without
authorization by statute. Under the Executive Order 10333 the president spies on Americans as if they were foreigners, although this surveillance has not been authorized by statute. Bush embarked on a global program of kidnapping and torture, including of foreign nationals, which Obama continued. Bush and Obama carried out targeted assassinations, usually by militarized drones, across the globe. And Obama, reinterpreting the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act, gave the executive branch the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens. The killings began with drone strikes on the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and, two weeks later, his 16-year-old son. Such a violation denies U.S. citizens due process. By signing into law Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama—whose record on civil liberties is even more appalling than Bush’s gutted the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military as a domestic police force.

These two presidents, like Trump, violated treaty clauses that required Senate ratification. Obama did this when he signed the Iran nuclear deal and Trump did this when he walked away from the deal. Bush and Obama, like Trump, violated the appointments clause of the Constitution by appointing people who were never confirmed by the Senate as required. The three presidents, to override Congress, all routinely abused their right to use executive orders.

At the same time the courts, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate power, have transformed the electoral system into legalized bribery through the Citizens United ruling, handed down by the Supreme Court in 2010. Corporations pouring unlimited money into elections was interpreted by the court as the right to petition the government and a form of free speech, essentially overturning the
people’s rights by judicial fiat. Also, the courts have steadfastly refused to restore basic constitutional rights including our right to privacy and due process. “The constitutional rot is in all three branches,” Fein said.

The 12 impeachable offenses committed by Trump and singled out by Fein are:

1. Contempt of Congress

Trump made clear his contempt of Congress when he boasted, “… I have Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

“President Trump has repeatedly and unconstitutionally systematically undermined the congressional oversight power, including the ongoing congressional impeachment inquiry of the President himself, by instructing numerous current and former White House staff and members of the executive branch to defy congressional subpoenas on an unprecedented scale far beyond any previous President,” Fein
wrote to Pelosi. “Without congressional authority, he has secretly deployed special forces abroad and employed secret guidelines for targeted killings, including American citizens, based on secret unsubstantiated information. He has unconstitutionally endeavored to block private persons or entities from responding to congressional requests or subpoenas for information, e.g., Deutsche Bank. He has refused to provide Congress information about nepotistic or other security clearances he granted in opposition to his own FBI security experts. He has refused to disclose his tax returns to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee contrary to a 1924 law, 26 U.S.C. 6103 (f).”

2. Abuse of the Powers of the President and Abuse of Public Trust

“Unlike prior presidents, he has made presidential lies as routine as the rising and setting of the sun, confounding civil discourse, truth and public trust,” the memo to Pelosi reads. “He has disrespected, belittled, and serially preyed upon women, mocked the disabled, incited violence against the mainstream media and critics, and encouraged and displayed bigotry towards minorities and
minority Members of Congress, including intercession with Israel in serious violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, section 6, clause 1, to deny two Members visitor visas.”

3. Appropriations Clause, Revenue Clause

“Congress has consistently voted much less money than President Trump requested to build an extensive, multi-billion-dollar wall with Mexico,” the memo reads. “In violation of the Clause and the criminal prohibition of the Anti-Deficiency Act, President Trump has committed to spending billions of dollars far in excess of what Congress has appropriated for the wall. The congressional power of the purse is a cornerstone of the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution requires all revenue measures to originate in the House of Representatives.

“In violation of the Clause, President Trump has raised tens of billions of dollars by unilaterally imposing tariffs with limitless discretion under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,” the memo reads. “He has become a Foreign Trade Czar in imposing tariffs or quotas or granting exemptions from his trade restrictions in his unbridled discretion to assist political friends and punish political enemies. Literally trillions of dollars in international trade have been affected. Riches are made, and livelihoods destroyed overnight with the capricious stroke of President Trump’s pen.”

4. Emoluments Clause

“Article I, section 9, clause 8 prohibits the President (and other federal officers), without the consent of Congress, from accepting any ‘present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.’

“President Trump has notoriously refused to place his assets in a blind trust,” the memo reads. “Instead, he continues to profit from opulent hotels heavily patronized by foreign governments. He has permitted his family to commercialize the White House. He has compromised the national interest to enrich family wealth on a scale unprecedented in the history of the presidency.”

5. Treaty Clause

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 requires Senate ratification of treaties by two-thirds majorities. The text is silent as to whether treaty termination requires Senate ratification, and the Supreme Court held the issue was a non-justiciable political question in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

“President Trump flouted the Treaty Clause in terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia unilaterally,” the memo reads. “The treaty assigned the termination decision to the ‘United States.’ The President alone is not the United States under the Treaty Clause.”

6. Declare War Clause

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 empowers Congress alone to take the nation from a state of peace to a state of war. That power cannot be delegated.

“In violation of the Declare War Clause, President Trump has continued to wage or has initiated presidential wars in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and has used special forces offensively in several African nations,” the memo reads.

“President Trump has claimed authority to initiate war against any nation or non-state actor in the world — not in self-defense — on his say-so alone, including war against North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela.”

7. Take Care Clause; Presentment Clause

Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

“In violation of that trust, President Donald J. Trump deliberately attempted to frustrate special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of collaboration between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia to influence the presidential election,” Fein points out.

“Among other things, the President refused to answer specific questions relating to his presidential conduct; endeavored to fire the special counsel; dangled pardons for non-cooperating witnesses; and, urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal decision to better protect his presidency. In all these respects, the President was attempting to obstruct justice.”

“President Trump has also systematically declined to enforce statutory mandates of Congress by arbitrarily and capriciously revoking scores of agency rules ranging from immigration to the Consumer Financial Protection Board to the Environmental Protection Agency in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act or otherwise,” the memo reads. “He has routinely legislated by executive order in lieu of following constitutionally prescribed processes for legislation.”

“In violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Mr. Trump has dismantled and disabled scores of preventive measures to save lives, avoid injuries or disease, help families, consumers, and workers, and detect, deter, and punish tens of billions of dollars of corporate fraud,” the memo continues. “He has disputed climate disruption as a ‘Chinese hoax,’
compounded the climate crisis by overt actions that expand greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, and excluded or marginalized the influence of civil service scientists.”

8. Due Process Clause

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be deprived of life … without due process of law.”

“In violation of due process, President Trump claims power, like his immediate two predecessors, to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill American citizens or non-citizens alike, on or off a battlefield, whether or not engaged in hostilities, whether or not accused of crime, and whether or not posing an imminent threat of harm that would trigger a right of preemptive self-defense,” the memo reads.

9. Appointments Clause

“President Trump has repeatedly appointed principal officers of the United States, including the National Security Advisor and Cabinet officials, who have not been confirmed by the Senate in violation of the Appointments Clause, Article II, section 2, clause 2,” the memo reads. “On a scale never practiced by prior presidents, Mr. Trump has filled as many as half of Cabinet posts with
‘Acting Secretaries’ who have never been confirmed by the Senate.”

10. Soliciting a Foreign Contribution for the 2020 Presidential Campaign and Bribery

“President Trump has endeavored to corrupt the 2020 presidential campaign by soliciting the President of Ukraine to contribute something of value to diminish the popularity of potential rival Joe Biden, i.e., a Ukrainian investigation of Mr. Biden and his son Hunter relating to potential corrupt practices of Burisma, which compensated Hunter handsomely ($50,000 per month). In so doing, Mr.
Trump violated the criminal campaign finance prohibition set forth in 52 U.S.C. 30121,” Fein’s memo reads.

“President Trump solicited a bribe for himself in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201 in seeking something of personal value, i.e., discrediting Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign with the help of the President of Ukraine to influence Mr. Trump’s official decision to release approximately $400 million in military and related assistance,” it adds.

11. Violating Citizen Privacy

“Government spying on Americans ordinarily requires a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause to believe crime is afoot,” the memo reads. “President Trump, however, routinely violates the Fourth Amendment with suspicionless surveillance of Americans for non-criminal, foreign intelligence purposes under Executive Order 12333 and aggressive interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

12. Suppression of Free Speech

“President Trump is violating the First Amendment in stretching the Espionage Act to prosecute publication of leaked classified information that are instrumental to exposing government lies and deterring government wrongdoing or misadventures, including the outstanding indictment against Julian Assange for publishing information which was republished by the New York Times and The
Washington Post with impunity,” the memo reads.

“The Republic is at an inflection point,” the letter to Speaker Pelosi reads. “Either the Constitution is saved by impeaching and removing its arsonist in the White House, or it is reduced to ashes by continued congressional endorsement, whether by omission or commission, of limitless executive power and the undoing of checks and balances.”

*
Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers University, and an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Check up your understanding of ideologies...

Written mostly for American audience; nevertheless, this quiz is a valuable guide for non-Americans as well...

Ideology Quiz
By Kevin Duffy
December 13, 2019



    How much do you trust political figures?
        Totally
        Mostly
        Somewhat
        Hardly
        Not at all

    Do the ends justify the means?
        Yes
        Often
        Sometimes
        Rarely
        Never

    Should freedom of speech and expression be limited in any way?
        Yes, for threats, libel, slander, hate speech or criticism of government
        Yes, for threats, libel, slander or hate speech
        Yes, for threats, libel or slander
        Yes, for yelling fire in a crowded theater
        No

    How do you feel about taxes?
        They’re too low for the rich; taxes are the price we pay to live in a free country
        They’re about right
        They’re too high
        Income tax is unconstitutional and should be repealed
        Taxation is theft

    Should discrimination be tolerated in the workplace?
        No, not on the basis of race, sex, age, sexual orientation or gender preference; anti-discrimination laws should be vigorously enforced and quotas imposed
        No, not on the basis of race or sex; anti-discrimination laws should be enforced
        No, not on the basis of race or sex, but anti-discrimination laws go too far if they lead to affirmative action
        No, not on the basis of race or sex, but the means should be moral suasion, not government intervention
        Yes, for any reason, such as building a cohesive corporate culture. Firms that discriminate for economically irrational reasons will go out of business. Anti-discrimination laws often create conflict and lead to unintended consequences

    How big a problem is wealth inequality?
        Major problem that requires significant taxes on wealth
        Major problem, but not easy to remedy
        Minor problem; there are more pressing concerns
        Minor problem; the cure is worse than the disease
        Non-problem that will destroy the economy if pursued aggressively

    Are big companies like Amazon and Google becoming monopolies?
        Yes, we should break them up
        Yes, regulate them more
        Not sure
        No, there’s still plenty of competition
        As long as they’re not putting a gun to anyone’s head, who cares? We shouldn’t be punishing successful entrepreneurs

    Who should be responsible for K-12 education?
        Education is too important to be left to parents. Education is a basic human right… and responsibility
        Parents and government, with public schools available to all and federal government needed to establish standards
        Parents and government, with public schools and emphasis on local control
        Parents, but the government still has a role in making sure parents educate their children, either privately (including homeschooling) or with government-issued vouchers. Shut down the Department of Education
        Education is too important to be left to government bureaucrats. All education should be private and voluntary. Charity will fill the void for those in need

    Who are your favorite presidents?
        Lincoln, Wilson and FDR because they led in times of crisis
        LBJ, JFK and Obama because they were progressive visionaries
        Washington and Reagan because they were charismatic conservative leaders
        Jefferson, Cleveland and Coolidge because they avoided trouble and paid down debt
        William H. Harrison because he died just 31 days into his term

    Was Lincoln justified in waging the Civil War?
        Yes, on the grounds of abolishing slavery, preserving the union and majority-rule
        Yes, on the grounds of abolishing slavery and preserving the union
        Yes, but Lincoln went too far in jailing dissidents while Union generals like Sherman went too far in harming civilians
        No, the South should have been allowed to secede on the basis of self-determination
        No, Lincoln was a calculating politician who snuffed out any limited government impulses and ushered in an era of big government and total war

    What caused the Great Depression?
        Wild speculation led to the 1929 crash; FDR’s New Deal and World War II got the country out of depression
        The Federal Reserve made the mistake of sitting idly by while the money supply contracted sharply in the early 1930s
        Wild speculation led to the crash, but FDR’s New Deal spending went too far and possibly prolonged the depression
        FDR’s New Deal turned a garden variety recession into the country’s worst depression
        Aggressive money printing by the Fed caused a fake boom in the 1920s, while unprecedented monetary and fiscal intervention in the economy (by both Hoover and FDR) exacerbated and prolonged the depression

    What do you think about FDR’s social security plan enacted in 1935?
        Master stroke that kept many seniors out of soup lines; should be expanded and benefits means tested
        Good idea, but needs to be shored up, not expanded
        It made sense at the time, but didn’t take into account people living longer
        Very concerned. It should’ve been kept small, available only to those most in need
        Massive Ponzi scheme that will fuel generational conflict and likely bankrupt the country

    Which of these services should be provided by government?
        Roads, schools, courts, national defense, medical care
        Roads, schools, courts, national defense
        Schools, courts, national defense
        Courts, national defense
        None

    Which of these wars should the U.S. government have avoided?
        None
        Vietnam War
        Vietnam War, Iraq War
        Vietnam War, Iraq War, World War I
        Vietnam War, Iraq War, World War I, World War II

    How do you feel about the military?
        Heroes rooting out evil around the globe and defending our freedoms at home; we need to increase defense spending and create more jobs
        Doing heroic work, but we’re reaching limits on how much we can afford to spend on defense
        We should maintain a strong military presence abroad, but pull out of quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan
        We could easily cut defense spending in half by shutting down bases and bringing our men in uniform home
        The military industrial complex is kicking over hornet’s nests around the globe, bankrupting the country, feeding the government parasite, and threatening our freedoms at home in the process. Dismantle the empire and ultimately privatize defense

    Where do you stand on the large trade deficit with China?
        Use all means possible to reduce this, even military force as a last resort
        Raise tariffs and apply political pressure on the Chinese to enforce intellectual property rights
        Use diplomacy
        Avoid any restrictions on free trade and enforce intellectual property rights
        Statistical nonsense. Trade is mutually beneficial; encourage more by removing all tariffs and other trade impediments

    What do you think about trade embargoes with countries like Iran, Cuba and North Korea?
        These are our enemies; starve them into submission
        Limit trade and any foreign aid to food and medicine
        Allow government vetted tourism and limited trade
        Allow unlimited tourism and limited trade
        End all embargoes, regardless of the regime in power, and allow our citizens to trade with and visit these countries without government interference

    How does it make you feel when a large multinational company builds a factory in a poor country and hires workers at well-below American wages?
        Sick to my stomach. This is capitalism at its worst: big business exploiting the poor who have few options
        I see where these companies are providing slightly better opportunities for these poor workers, but why don’t they do more to help them? Greed
        Mixed emotions. American consumers are benefitting from the lower prices, but some Americans are losing their jobs
        Pretty good, actually. Everyone benefits: foreign workers, the company and its shareholders, and American consumers
        In addition to the win-win-win of foreign workers, shareholders and consumers, the world is becoming more interconnected and less bellicose. These companies should be applauded

    What should the role of the Federal Reserve be?
        Smooth out the business cycle and prevent a systemic collapse, i.e. a “run on the bank”
        Focus on avoiding deflation (keeping inflation at 1-2%)
        I have no strong opinion, but probably prevent depressions
        Minimal role: should be audited and severely limited in its scope
        Should be abolished. The Fed serves special interests on Wall Street and creates the boom-bust cycle, misallocates capital, and causes inflation in the process

    What are your thoughts on health care?
        Should be a basic human right with medical services provided by government for everyone
        There should be private health care for those who can afford it and public health care for those who can’t. Government should provide more assistance
        System has its flaws, but it’s still the best in the world. No need for major changes
        Litigation reform and repealing state laws that mandate unnecessary insurance coverage would make health care more affordable
        System is a mess thanks to government intervention. Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, licensing laws, and costly malpractice lawsuits and allow the free market to work its magic

    What are your thoughts about climate change?
        Global warming will reach crisis proportions within a decade. We need a massive world government response in order to save us
        This is a serious problem that must be dealt with, but I fear giving up our sovereignty to a world government. Bring on the Green New Deal
        I’m concerned, but fear the issue has been politicized. We need less hysteria and more balance
        This is an overreaction; global warming isn’t happening
        Global warming may or may not happen, but that doesn’t warrant impoverishing ourselves with world government solutions costing trillions of dollars. The free market is the best way to adapt to any changes in climate

    How do you feel about legalizing drugs?
        No way; drug use and addiction would explode
        Legalize marijuana, but regulate and tax it heavily
        Start with the least dangerous drugs and go from there
        Legalize all narcotics, but keep the FDA
        Legalize all drugs and abolish the FDA

    Where do you stand on intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, copyright)?
        Necessary to promote innovation
        Necessary, but sometimes goes too far
        In need of reform
        Leads to frivolous lawsuits and in need of major overhaul
        Restricts competition and should be abolished

    Where do you stand on the Constitution?
        Too confining and gets in the way of governing
        Living document that should bend with the times
        Adaptable, but should be rigid when guaranteeing certain personal freedoms
        Should be (but hasn’t been) interpreted literally and faithfully, betraying the limited government vision of the founders
        Nice try, but opened the door to high taxation and big government

    What are your impressions of democratic government?
        Ideal way to govern and protect our freedoms; will of the majority should prevail
        Great idea, system of checks and balances was put in to prevent abuse of the minority by the majority
        Doesn’t work quite as well in practice as in theory; still, it’s the best system of government man has come up with so far
        Founders feared democracy and tried to limit government tyranny of the minority; they’re probably rolling in their graves
        Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

To calculate your score:

(A) answers = 0
(B) answers = 1
(C) answers = 2
(D) answers = 3
(E) answers = 4

If your total score is 0-10, you believe the heavy hand of government is needed to restrain innate impulses of man towards chaos and depravity.  You identify ideologically as totalitarian along with people like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot.  If your total score is 91-100, you believe a free society brings out the best impulses of man towards spontaneous order and goodness, while government intervention brings out the worst.  You identify as anarcho-capitalist along with people like Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Lew Rockwell.

Scores from 11 to 90 range from statist to minarchist (or classical liberal).  The labels “conservative” or “progressive” have little bearing on where one lands on the ideological spectrum, although conservatives usually have higher scores (but not always).

Influence of Wahhabite-Salafist ideology on Asia

Spreading to even the remotest hamlets in the 1980s, a more devout, less tolerant creed nurtured fundamentalism across the region...

How Arabization changed Islam in Asia
Jeff Kingston
The Asia Times, December 2019

In the introduction to his new book The Politics of Religion, Nationalism and Identity in Asia (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019),  Jeff Kingston writes: “It is impossible to understand contemporary Asia without understanding the politics of nationalism and religion. They are a volatile mix that incites violence and poses a significant risk to secularism, tolerance, civil liberties, democracy, and political stability.

“This toxic tide has swept the region from Pakistan to the Philippines and Columbo to Kunming with tragic consequences. Recently the nexus of religion and nationalism is featured in headlines about 730,000 Rohingya Muslims being driven out of Myanmar, one million Uighur Muslims being locked up in China, Kashmiris slaughtered in India, and Islamic State affiliates wreaking havoc in Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines and in Sri Lanka.

“Who would have imagined hatemongering Buddhist monks inciting violence and intolerance or setting themselves on fire to protest ethnocide in Tibet? Or pious vigilantes beheading atheist bloggers in Dhaka?”

In this article excerpted from Chapter 4, he focuses especially on two of the largest predominantly Muslim Asian countries, Indonesia and Bangladesh:

Over the past few decades, a process of Arabization has influenced the practice of Islam in Asia, spreading a more devout and less tolerant creed that nurtures fundamentalism and militancy. The suicide bombings by Islamic extremists in churches and hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter 2019 are a tragic example of the consequences.

Saudi Arabian financing for mosque building and educational programs has promoted a profound shift in the role of Islam in society and national identities across the region. Arabization has polarized the Islamic word in Asia, fanning the flames of sectarianism, bigotry, hate, intolerance, and terrorism.

The contemporary Salafist wave has strongly influenced religious practice and mainstreamed Islamic reformism, but in threatening national unity and peace it has also generated a backlash by secular nationalists and the institutions of the state they have nurtured since independence. Thus, the battles over religion are also political battles over temporal power and national identity.

Many Muslims around the world see globalization as the equivalent of a crusade threatening to overwhelm their values and norms through an onslaught of popular Western culture, liberal values, secular attitudes, religious pluralism, and promiscuous lifestyles.

Anxieties have intensified due to the communications revolution over the past few decades beaming and streaming Western music, films, fashion, and images of the “good life” throughout the ummah.

This ubiquitous exposure to Western ways, penetrating Muslim minds and reinforcing a sense of weakness and subordination, provokes a backlash mobilized by conservative religious groups who try to assert a reinvigorated Islam as an authentic indigenous response.

Cultural invasion

Yet what is authentic? In some respects, Arabization represents a cultural invasion mirroring globalization, both welcome and resented.

For many Asian Muslims, an Arab-centric Islam is part of their identity, one that is cosmopolitan and gives them entry into an imagined community of global believers. They are influenced by the intellectual ferment and Islamic experiences around the world, adapting and responding to what they see and learn.

Often this imagined community is an Internet echo chamber of the like-minded, demonstrating the common tendency toward confirmation bias. It is a low-cost, low-commitment participation that entices through instantaneous access to developments in the Islamic world that encourages sympathy toward Muslim struggles ranging from Palestine and Kashmir to Afghanistan and Syria.

There is an immediacy and sense of empowerment of feeling solidarity with unknown people in distant places and having empathy for their suffering. Arabization enables Saudi Arabia to shape this experience and nurture a discourse that promotes its agenda. Educational programs and scholarships help it sway opinion by credentializing capable people who can exert influence over others.

Arabization and the intolerant creed of Salafism gain momentum in Muslim majority Asia due to lavish Saudi funding and socio-economic grievances that anger and frustrate youth in these nations. For them, the status quo and moderate Islam offer inadequate solace and little hope of change or a brighter future.

Globalization, tarnished as it is by failures and broken promises, gives impetus to Arabization. These unmet expectations reinforce a sense of neo-imperial subjugation and powerlessness, as remote and unresponsive forces discriminate, dictate terms, and determine destinies.

Militancy feeds on this discontent and alienation while fundamentalist Islam calls on believers to purify society, rendering this a sacred mission.

Religious community

The religious community empowers those who join the struggle and endows them with sacral dignity, status they would not otherwise enjoy, and a sense that they matter, that they are making a difference, and that they are needed. To the extent that democratic space for dissent and reform shrinks, fundamentalists are drawn to militant methods.

The forces of secularism remain resilient but appear to be on the defensive and losing the battle for youth in societies in which too many feel acute despair due to scant chances of advancement for themselves or their religious identity. It doesn’t matter that Arabization and fundamentalism don’t offer any sustainable solution, or that extremism is a dead end.

The righteous message is a tonic for the bypassed and deracinated dupes and prey of globalization. The legions of the aggrieved have a sense of being under assault, spawning a greater commitment and willingness to sacrifice in the name of Allah. It may seem hard in Muslim majority nations to conjure up credible threats to the primacy of Islam, but fearmongering clerics and state provocations stoke the necessary siege atmosphere.

The ideas and ideology fueled by Arabization are gaining adherents, creating momentum to continue challenging their country’s religious identity and national character. These advocates are skilled at manufacturing threats to the ummah, even in nations with some of the world’s largest Muslim populations.

Bangladesh and Indonesia are targets of Saudi-funded Arabization that is shifting Asian Islam toward a Salafist intolerance and reformist zeal that threaten minorities, the differently devout, and political stability.

Manufacturing or exaggerating threats, quick to take umbrage over minor or imagined insults and slights, showing little inclination to forgive and overcome differences, sanctimoniously denouncing and threatening Muslims or non-believers who disagree with or diverge from their austere religious vision, Salafists with their growing influence in Asia have been bad news for moderate Muslims, secularists, non-Muslim minorities and social cohesion.

There are interesting parallels between Indonesia and Bangladesh as they navigate the cross-currents of globalization and Arabization. Both nations embrace secular identities in their respective constitutions, but this has been challenged ever since they achieved independence by Islamic groups who seek to impose shariah and establish Islamic states.

Secular national identity has been maintained, but this has involved significant concessions to Islamic hardliners. Unelected pressure groups in both nations have exploited democracy and electoral politics to force secular leaders to grant concessions.

Indeed, Indonesian President Joko Widodo selected an Islamic hardliner as his running mate for the 2019 elections in order to fend off the prospects of an Islamic attack campaign like the one that had unseated his close ally in the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial campaign. Choosing a vice presidential running mate who supported that campaign may have disappointed some Jokowi supporters but represented a sensible risk management strategy.

Prime Minister Sheik Hasina of Bangladesh has also made a series of concessions to Islamic groups and undercut secularists, revealing her anxiety about being portrayed as insufficiently Islamic. This pandering has gained momentum despite the fact she faces no significant opposition party.

Unlike the case in Indonesia, Islamic parties have held power in Bangladesh, but with the sidelining of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, political Islam has been marginalized from mainstream politics and thereby radicalized.

Not having a stake in the parliamentary system, Islamic groups are not subject to the constraints of party politics and appear to have little trouble shrugging off bans on their activities. Moreover, discontent with the Awami government helps discredit secularism and reinforces fundamentalist rejection of democracy as antithetical to Islamic precepts.

In both nations, the military has connived with Islamic groups against political forces on the left.

In 1965 and 1966 the Indonesian military, with tacit US support, slaughtered many while also helping Islamic youth groups carry out widespread massacres against suspected communists, an orgy of orchestrated violence that claimed several hundred thousand lives.

Since 1975 in Bangladesh the military has resorted to coups and manipulated militant Islam to neutralize the leftist leaning, secular Awami League. Remarkably, it even sponsored the rehabilitation of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamic group that fought alongside Pakistan’s military to quash Bangladesh’s independence, engaging in brutal atrocities.

Another military leader revised the Constitution in 1988 to make Islam the national religion, attempting to assert the primacy of religion in national identity and thus overturn the language-based secular national identity that was at the core of the civil war and embraced by the Awami League since independence in 1971.

Security forces

Militants in Indonesia remain bitter that the state has not fulfilled the promises of the Jakarta Charter of 1945 requiring all Muslims to abide by shariah, an agenda shared by their counterparts in Bangladesh.

Islamic extremism and terrorism have also led to extra-judicial killings by the security forces in both nations, thereby undermining the rule of law that is essential to democracy and human rights.

Both nations have experienced significant backsliding in their secular and tolerant pluralist national identities.

Although Saudi Arabia has devoted considerable resources to promoting a more rigid Islam, in Indonesia there seems to be a more widespread pushback against a Salafist identity at the local level.

In rural Bangladesh, too often the only effective educational, health or spiritual support on offer emanates from Saudi-financed initiatives that limit the scope for defiance.

In both nations, Saudi promotion of intolerance toward Islamic minorities such as the Shi’a or Ahmadiyya has gained momentum, and in both blasphemy has become a powerful political weapon.

Finally, in both nations Islamic militant groups maintain important transnational ties, owing a degree of allegiance while gaining enhanced legitimacy and in some cases training and funds. These are run on both a franchise model relying on existing outfits or through targeted recruiting.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent and the Islamic State provide varying degrees of external inspiration and promote radicalization that is riding in on the latest wave of Arabization, making the most of shambolic governance and vast inequalities.

Aside from educational scholarships, an important conduit of Salafism is the annual haj. The greatest number of hajis come from Indonesia, 221,000 in 2017, while Bangladesh is number four (127,000) – after Pakistan (179,000) and India (170,000). These Asian countries account for 700,000 out of the worldwide annual total of two million haji.

Usually, pilgrims spend forty days touring religious sites in Saudi Arabia, and this is often a transformative experience that exposes hajis to religious practice in the home of Islam, boosting their religiosity and stature back home.

Moreover, overseas workers in the Middle East encounter discrimination and harsh treatment but have prolonged exposure to Salafist practice and thus are an additional source of transmission. With over a million workers in Saudi Arabia alone, half of all those Bangladeshis working in the Mideast, this constitutes a significant potential influence especially given prolonged periods of residence.

Indonesia completely banned the dispatch of Indonesia workers to the Middle East since 2015 due to widespread abuses, but this doesn’t affect most of the 1.5 million Indonesians already working in Saudi Arabia.

Compared with previous waves, Arabization since the 1980s has been a tsunami involving sustained multi-dimensional interactions, hyper-connectedness, and lavishly funded institutionalization that marks it as vastly more powerful than anything that has come before, sweeping up far more people in even the remotest hamlets.

It is an Arab-centric strand of globalization, carrying similar implications as both are viewed as external homogenizing influences that provoke local backlash and unanticipated consequences. Conservative, authoritarian, and intolerant, contemporary Arabization is infusing national identities and polities with religious zealotry.

In pushing an illiberal agenda, hardline clerics have elicited illiberal responses from Jokowi and Hasina, thus sacrificing the tolerance and democratic values they are putatively trying to save.

Australia National University scholar Marcus Meitzner calls this backsliding “democratic deconsolidation,” a retreat from the values that contribute to political stability, heralding an escalation of religious-centered identity politics. The defense of democracy is best served, he argues, by deploying democratic means and the rule of law, not by criminalizing groups or adopting accommodationist policies.

Banning only strengthens and further radicalizes targeted organizations, gifting them an incendiary issue to rally around, while appeasement encourages incessant demands by those who insist on an Islamic national identity and nothing less.

Jeff Kingston is a director of Asian studies at Temple University, Japan

Carl Sagan on planet Earth

Carl Sagan summed up, in a paragraph, what our planet Earth is all about...