How Conservative Religious Extremists Around the World have Declared War on Secularism

by Nomad

Evangelists and some politicians talk about a war on religion and religious liberties. The examples of victimhood they cite are generally somewhat vague. Yet the truth is, around the world, the victims are not the people of faith, but those holding secularist views.  

Death of a Bangladeshi Blogger

Niloy Chatterjee lived humbly in Goran neighborhood of the Bangladesh capital, Dhaka. In early August of this year, on a Friday night, (the Sabbath day in Islam,)  a  machete welding gang broke into Chatterjee's apartment, pushed aside his family members and hacked Niloy to death in his bed. All of the attackers were apparently members of the local chapter of al-Qaeda.

As the writer of a blog, the 40-year-old Chatterjee went by the pen name, Niloy Neel. He used his blog as a free speech platform to criticize religious extremism in the nation.  

Let's Compare Clinton's Phony Email "Scandal" and Dick Cheney's Fetish for Secrecy

by Nomad

After searching in vain since in March of last year, wasting time and spending millions, the Republican Party still expects to find something on about Hillary Clinton's emails. They've already admitted the investigation were politically-motivated.
Too bad these tireless and principled investigators were not around when Vice President Dick Cheney was fighting to keep his secrets classified.

Things have a dreadful habit of backfiring for the Republicans. The more they blustered about President Bill Clinton's adultery the higher his approval rating climbed. By and large, the public thought it was a case of too much about too too little. 

It seems like the party has learned absolutely nothing. Take the fruitless email investigation and the search for.. what are they searching for?. Does anybody remember?

We do know how it began.

Investigation Ad Nauseum

The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee Investigation started out, as we all know, as a search for culpability in the deaths of State Department officials in the Benghazi attacks, which left four dead. 

After two agonizing years (filled with unsupported but damaging leaks to the press) the committee found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.  (Presumably, that would include the appointed Secretary of State.)

On the Benghazi investigation, more than $3,500,000 was thrown away. That figure exceeds the budget of the entire House Intelligence Committee. and does not include "significant expenditures made by the State Department and Defense Department to find and declassify material requested by the committee or the expense of witness travel for those who work for the government."

A miserable flop of a smear. So, what to do now, they asked? Why not a start a new investigation into Democratic candidate's use of a private email server? With the help of the media, the new so-called scandal investigation dragged on and on.

It didn't go smoothly. 

In October, false accusations by Chairman Trey Gowdy forced the CIA to step in with a rebuttal. 

Gowdy’s accusation was that Secretary Clinton had sent an email containing "some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

Totally untrue. No apology or clarification. The investigation pressed on as it does today. 

How much will be spent on this investigation is anybody's guess. It won't be cheap. As one source noted:

Rep. Gowdy now states the committee will continue its work into 2016 raising its cost to taxpayers to more than $6,000,000, casting his inaction as the result of the Obama administration’s slow pace at producing requested documents, a questionable premise.

Critics of the committee (and the numbers are growing) have called the investigation as nothing short of a taxpayer funded witch hunt of a leading presidential candidate. 

Supporters of the Republican-led investigations say Hillary must be guilty of something. However, many in the GOP seem to forget when it came to keeping secrets. nothing could surpass the overt duplicity of former vice-president Dick Cheney. 

How Three Asian Nations are Beating Outrageous Price-Gouging by American Pharmas

by Nomad

Some have started to question the exorbitant prices pharmaceutical companies charge the public. In Asia, we may be seeing a push back against what some see as price-gouging of the most desperate and vulnerable segment of the world's population: The sick and the poor.

In the recent past, Nomadic Politics examined, in two posts, alleged price-gouging for one company's drug for Hepatitis C. There are further developments to that story. First, let's re-cap.

The Breakthrough

The story begins with some very good news. It was reported last year that one orally-administered drug,  Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), has proved to be a breakthrough for the treatment of a silent killer virus, hepatitis C.  

From the clinical trial reports, researchers claimed that Sovaldi was not a life-long treatment but a genuine cure for the deadly disease itself. The therapy required a 12-week therapy but at the end, most of the patients would be free of the disease.  

Then came the bad news: Gilead Sciences, the patent-owner and developer of the drug, was definitely not a charity organization. It was a profit-making company which, according to Wikipedia, earned US $12.059 billion in 2014. 

It was immediately clear to everybody that the Hep C cure was not going to be given away free. Few, however, were expecting the price the company settled on. Sovaldi costs $1,000 a day, adding up to staggering $84,000 for a 12-week supply. 

The problem is obvious: at that price, a cure is out of reach of most patients in the world and even in rich countries.

Obamacare and Red State Rejections: How the Cost of Poor Decisions Continue to Mount

by Nomad

Many Republican governors who refused to accept Medicaid expansion in their states could be having second thoughts. The full consequences of their decision are slowly but surely becoming clear.

The Obamacare battle has taken a few interesting twists.

If you look at many of the conservative sites, you'd think it was a disaster and the worst thing that ever happened to America. The fog of partisanship is hard to peer through but grandually that mist seems to be lifting and that's bad news for red states.

With around 22 states now refusing to expand Medicaid under the national healthcare policy, analysts have been warning that Republican governors may end up paying a political price for their principled rejection. 

That's particularly true in Texas and Florida where the numbers of uninsured are high. According to some estimates, one quarter of the nation's low-income uninsured reside deep in the heart of Texas. 

But it is not just Texas or Florida. If any state could benefit from Obamacare it's Mississippi. The state tops the charts for poor-health indicators: highest in poverty, second-highest in obesity, highest in diabetes and highest in pre-term births. There, 20% Mississippi's nearly 3 million residents are on the Medicaid rolls. Twelve percent are on Medicare, and 20 percent are uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

And yet, despite the dire need, Republican Governor Phil Bryant decided to turn down an estimated $426 million in federal funds, citing administration costs and rather oddly, the possibility that Obamacare could in the future be repealed.

Why Rand Paul's Remarks about Gay Discrimination by Employers Exposes his True Character

by Nomad

While Rand Paul claims to be against all forms of discrimination when it comes to discrimination against gays in the workplace, Paul is willing to look the other way.

In Iowa on Wednesday, Presidential candidate Rand Paul exposed himself. 
Not literally. 

Today MSNBC reports noted that during his 3-day tour in Iowa, Paul was asked whether there was a need for hiring. He didn't think discrimination against gay and lesbians was a matter for the courts. He came out against any employment protections for LGBT citizens, saying:

"I think society is rapidly changing and that if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you."

Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation by employers was something that all gay and Lesbian Americans should just put up with. They had no right to expect any protection under the law.

Paul said that designating the LGBT community as a protected class, like race, gender, and ethnicity, would create a new group "who can now sue." 

Demanding equality is not, and has never been, seeking to become a "protected class."

And the same argument used by Pand could be applied to every other group presently covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin.

Once you open the doors for discrimination in labor practices, it can easily spread to other areas, like the public sphere. 

Indeed, Rand Paul's reply could have been used for anti-discrimination laws in the past. The owners of "whites-only' restaurants or swimming pools could easily have made the same arguments. "There are other restaurants for blacks to eat at. Other swimming pools that black children can swim in. If they don't like sitting at the back of the bus, then let them walk."

If you think that comparison is an exaggeration, it's just not true.
Five years ago, that very question was brought up and Paul stumbled and fumbled for an answer.