The women of Afghanistan don't need the Taliban, but the people of Afghanistan, including the Taliban need Afghanistan's women. Maybe this view is contrary to the conventional view for some here in the US, but maybe it's time for the conventional to change?
For an entire generation while the Taliban was chasing across the country trading hostilities with the US, the women of the nation were developing knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience in a multitude of things and areas.
Not only did women participate in national governance and administration, they helped develop commerce, run businesses including a variety of media, were involved in provincial administration affairs, participated in local government, and in the judiciary,
The Afghani women were making it happen.
By doing so, Afghanistan became more than a landlocked place on a map with vassals and warlords. It became a nation, however imperfect the national government functioned as an entity, and despite the corruption.
The Taliban have none of that capability now, They have no capacity to acquire it themselves any time in the near future, and they will need that same human infrastructure to function as a nation. Many of the women have it, and can bring it to bear almost immediately.
The Taliban is the dog who has chased the car for decades. They've now caught it and must figure out what to do with it.
Prior to the US's arrival Afghanistan was never a democracy. It may never be a democracy. Perhaps it doesn't need to be. While it may be our preference, that was never our call to make. But what it will need is every bit of talent it has to stand up in whatever form it decides.
Whether they want it or not, the women will be the backbone enabling that. So if the Taliban were smart - at least smarter than the republicans here in the US - they would protect women as a priceless resource, and not just vessels for forced marriages, sex and breeding.
They'd find away to put women in the places where they can be most effective, productive, and thrive to maximize their capabilities and contributions.
That includes continued education for girls who would be able to assume important roles in society that will make the nation stronger in the future. As the women and children thrive, so will the nation.
And, that will enable the Taliban to then pursue ISIS-K, al-Qaeda, and any other disruptive, malign forces that threaten the internal security of the nation. Then they will have truly won the war that drove away the outsiders and the imperialists.
We've been at war for a generation but I harbor no ill will toward them. We've both lost and sacrificed a lot - too much, now it's time to turn a corner. We may never be allies, but I'm pulling for Afghanistan. Most of all, I'm mostly pulling for the women and the children.
If you look at how the DoJ and FBI handled the failed Epstein investigations years ago, then fast forward to the the Nasser investigation in 2015, then KAVANAUGH in 2018, There is a deep cultural problem with how the Justice Department ignores rape, sex and child trafficking.
That's in spite of the fact that there are federal laws on the books to combat those specific issues. Right now it appears that each time the public becomes aware a a failure, a piecemeal review is done treating each incident as a standalone situation with no depth or results.
The reality is the lack of seriousness that the DoJ and FBI apply to those investigations IS as big a problem as the rapes and trafficking itself. It's a deep, systemic, cultural problem, and it requires a deep root cause analysis - and criminal charges for officials - to fix it.
The entire role of States is to govern the residents therein. If states delegate and abdicate their governing and enforcement duties, then there is effectively no state. If anyone can enforce the law on anyone, there's no need for police departments, or state governments.
That is anarchy.
Thus states are chartered with that responsibility as states. Individuals have no inherent right to enforce or deny the rights of other individuals. That power to individuals is nonexistent and can't even be granted by the state.
That's what makes SCOTUS's non-decision decision in the Texas abortion law case such a silly, embarrassing, cowardly sham. The court called the scheme "novel." It's not. But it is craven and nefarious. And it demonstrates the courts willingness to be overtly blind and dishonest.
There are many valid reasons for Biden to expand the court - and for Manchin and Sinema to get out of the way. So far they have given little to no reason which betrays and highlights their underlying position of obstructing Biden purely because they are venal and craven.
But, someone will sue over mandates announced today. I believe SCOTUS will then seize the opportunity to block him, because they have run amok. Because it is a national emergency, if they do, I hope he takes the opportunity to expand the court and shut down the conservatives.
At that point, whether or not tens of thousands will continue to get sick and die will then not be on the republican who have made their position clear. It will be completely on Manchin and Sinema.
In the midst of a pandemic that's still spreading, and testing is still an expensive bottleneck, it seems criminally negligent for inexpensive home testing kits, which take a few minutes, to not be available for every home in America when they already exist.
Meanwhile, PCR tests which take days can still cost $100 or more, far more. That is almost completely unusable and no good for parents or teachers who are responsible for kids who still can't be vaccinated.
I'm glad that Biden is pushing hard for the availability of in-home testing, but I want to know why the tests seem to be held up on the market when they've been in existence for months? And who, specifically, are the beneficiaries of not making them more widely available?
Someone made a comment about how some republicans may not go along with what states like Texas are doing with voting rights and abortion, but they're too afraid to speak up because of the possible ramifications. So they disagree in silence. That's been stuck in my craw for a bit.
As a human response, I kind of get that. Fear can be paralyzing, overwhelming, and no one wants to lose, all including their lives. And, if you have children who will care for and look after them should something happen to you? It seems like an impossible choice.
Who wouldn't be concerned? Everyone of sound mind would be, and should be.
That's the point.
That's why on the other hand, as a matter of the survival, of defending themselves, their families, and of defending democracy, the choice of silence - and it is a choice - is BS.
There still seems to be some confusion about the difference between the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For The People Act, and why they're both necessary.
There are at least two separate and discrete - but connected - issues that have to solved to protect voting and elections. The first deals with the specific processes and procedures of the act of voting and running elections.
Those are essentially the who, what, when, where, and how to specifically cast and count votes, and to do so fairly. Those policies were overseen by the Voting Rights Act until it was largely gutted. Those protections must be restored and extended, and that's the John Lewis Act.