And these are not even Alternative Facts. Are reporters now going to be required to Fact Check anything that is stated as being factual to determine what category if it falls into, Alternative or Actual? I propose a third: Adnitted Facts.
No issue highlights the need to bring down the duopoly as much as war. Some incremental change may be possible on other issues via working though the system, but not war. War remains the great untouchable in this country's political system. Both parties worship it and nourish it. Neither party will ever produce a genuine peace candidate. War is this country's default foreign policy.
As Buchheit illustrates, you cannot compartmentalize foreign policy and domestic policy. A government that considers citizens of other countries as expendable and shows contempt for international law is the same government that that will not hesitate to use its own people and disregard its own laws. Such a government will not be voted out of office. It owns the system. It will only produce candidates that adhere and conform to its dictates. Neither party is now capable of fielding a peace candidate.
" the frequency of terrorist acts was greatest in the 1970s and 1980s."
I disagree with this. I think Rand has discounted a huge class of terrorism, and that the greatest frequency took place in the 1950's and the early part of the 20th century, in response to real or proposed advances in civil rights.
When a teenage girl has to be escorted by police to her first day of school, you know your country has a problem with terrorism. We all need to acknowledge that terrorism is the cardinal feature of the darker half (yes, "half", not just "side") of American culture. We need to recognize that the original terrorists in this country were not immigrants, commies and rag-heads. They were (and are) many of the white people living just down the street from us.
It's scary because to a lot of us, this will mean acknowledging that terrorism is closer to us than we have been willing to admit, not just geographically, but psychologically.
From the AP:
I don't think there's been US confirmation yet, at least I couldn't find any.
Is the US backing Russia/Assad now?
Update: US military is denying that this mission took place.
Who to believe? In the Age of Trump, which "facts" are alternative?
Excellent--brief and to the point. Thank you for this article.
John McCain and Paul Ryan and numerous other super-patriots condemned President Obama's pardon of Chelsea Manning.
"Super-Patirot" is not the right word here. Consulting dictionary.com, "Patriotism" is defined as "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country"; and "superpatriot" is defined as "a person who is patriotic to an extreme".
In this regard, Manning and Snowden could be called superpatriots. McCain and Ryan are greedy a$$holes with fascistic tendencies.
Knowing what we know from reading the Gospels about the nature of Jesus Christ, if He was to provide an opinion here to this topic, what would He write? What would he say about all the physically and mentally scarred young war veterans? All the suicides? All the displaced and suffering civilians? All the destruction of dwellings? Of livelihoods?
I can't answer these questions on behalf of Jesus but I think our consciences maybe can and should.
A line from an old folk song keeps ringing in my ears, "When will they ever learn... when will they ever learn? I wonder why?