April 29, 2013
April 29, 2013
April 27, 2013
“Hyper-partisanship makes you stupid, and you start playing to the cheap seats.” – John Avlon
April 22, 2013
With some reflection on the tragedy a week ago at the Boston Marathon, it’s clear America is still deeply scarred by the events of 9/11 over a decade ago. Why is it so clearly obvious to so many Americans that we should label last week’s bombing as a terrorist act, but not the Newtown school shooting? What is our definition of terrorism? Was Newtown not sufficiently terrifying? On the contrary, while many more people were wounded from last week’s bombing, last December’s school shooting saw many more fatalities. On that measure, we should consider the Newtown shooting to be at least on the same level as the Boston Marathon bombing, yet we do not, at least not from a perspective of public safety.
April 20, 2013
Real Time with Bill Maher
April 19, 2013
April 17, 2013
Yes, that is a silly question. And yes, in the past we have labeled white bombers as domestic terrorists. It’s not like we play semantics with something as important as terrorism, right?
March 25, 2013
A new Gallup poll shows a strong majority of Americans (65%) support drone “airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists.” President George W. Bush was wrong about a lot of things, but he tapped into a sentiment that many Americans feel (right or wrong), that they would rather take out perceived enemies on foreign soil. Bush famously said we would fight the terrorist “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” And who wouldn’t want their enemies vanquished in some far away land, out of sight, out of mind? As for collateral damage — well, we are at war, right? A one-state war against a tactic, not a nation or an army, but that’s just semantics, right?
February 10, 2013
Americans have voiced their decision; they have accepted perpetual war. The Obama administration no longer calls our indefinite conflict a “war on terror,” but that has not changed our policy towards terrorism. In fact, it has only enhanced it, and not for the better.
September 26, 2012
Conor Friedersdorf wrote a piece in The Atlantic outlining on ethical and moral terms, why he refuses to vote for Barack Obama. And I agree with just about everything he says, except not supporting President Obama. — He lays out his case citing Obama’s reckless use of drone strikes and targeted killings of American citizens without trial. President Obama should not be above the law. We said the same thing about George W. Bush. Friedersdorf admits that he likes Obama, finds him engaging as a speaker, but the following three facts make it impossible for him to vote for Obama:
August 21, 2012
Eliot Spitzer explains the total lack of congressional hearings or investigations into right-wing terrorism in America:
August 13, 2012
It might seem like a difficult choice sometimes to vote at all, particularly if you live by the idea of voting for what is right. I guess a more nuanced approach would be to say you should vote for the candidate who is closer to what you believe is right. The game might be rigged, but don’t allow the candidate who is further from your values to win by not casting your vote. And I sincerely say this regardless of who you plan to vote for. I will lay out the case in article after article of why I think that should be Barack Obama, but you will have to vote your conscience, not mine.