The Democratic Party, operating from darkness as is its wont, is still blaming Ralph Nader for their defeat in 2000. A piece at Politico begins “The Clinton campaign has a question for Bernie Sanders: Are you to become “a Ralph Nader and try to destroy the party?”
Where does one begin to expose the deceit in this?
We all feel the seemingly oppressive impact of the conservative force that has taken over the United States, but feel hard-pressed to identify where it started and the specific entities responsible. Most of us suspect that it was no accident. We can be most certain that it isn’t.
Trudeau’s budding “bromance” with US President Barak Obama in March marks the first official visit by a Canadian leader since 1997, when Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien visited the last charismatic Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Both visits were friendly–Clinton gushed at the time: “We have the most comprehensive ties of any two nations on earth.” Chretien was not invited by Clinton’s successor, George Bush, who was furious when Chretien refused to join his “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq. More like ‘bro-hate’.
He’s just as bad as you tried to forget he was.
When former president George W. Bush kicked things off on Monday with a typically smug, heh-heh performance at a Jeb (!) Bush rally in South Carolina, I didn’t expect to have the same kind of visceral reaction I used to have to the sound of his voice.
For eight years I listened to that Texas drawl, dripping with patrilineal Connecticut Yankee privilege, explain away blatant corruption, governmental negligence, and the most destructive foreign policy in modern memory (and that’s saying something!).
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?
“Self-described socialist” … How many times have we all read that term in regard to Vermont senator Bernie Sanders? But is he really a socialist? Or is he a “social democrat”, which is what he’d be called in Europe? Or is he a “democratic socialist”, which is the American party he has been a member of (DSA – Democratic Socialists of America)? And does it really matter which one he is? They’re all socialists, are they not?
President Obama should be given props for the progress made in thawing US-Cuban relations, but there’s a piece of unfinished business that he could–and should–still attend to: returning the US Naval Base in Guantanamo to the Cuban people. In doing so, he could also solve another dilemma that has plagued his administration: closing the Guantanamo prison.
President Obama’s oval office talk on terrorism promises more of the same failed strategy based on no serious reconsideration of changed reality. From the top, by focusing on 14 Americans killed in San Bernardino, the President plays into the terrorists’ hands.
On May 19, 1916, representatives of Great Britain and France secretly reached an accord, known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, by which most of the Arab lands under the rule of the Ottoman Empire were to be divided into British and French spheres of influence upon the conclusion of World War 1. That this agreement was conducted in secrecy, reveals to what extent the voices of the inhabitants of this region were absent from negotiations. It was as if the voices of the ruling Colonial elites were the only ones that had credibility.
Hello, is anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone home?
Joseph in Egypt: A Myth
I confess: I don’t believe in the biblical story of Joseph. Quite aside from the fanciful notion that Joseph built the pyramids for grain storage (as alleged by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson), I don’t believe in the Bible character himself–any more than I believe in Prometheus, Rama, or the Yellow Emperor of Chinese mythology.
