First of all, I believe in compassion for unfortunate people. Secondly, I believe the U.S. bears moral responsibility for the hoards of desperate immigrants leaving places like Syria and Libya. Our military interventions are - more than anything else - what caused this. Thirdly, I think Islam is a beautiful religion, and I have no problem with dark-skinned people.
Those things said, there are a number of problems with opening our borders to a massive influx of foreigners. It weakens the power of labor and results in low pay and weak benefits for America's working class, while it gives cheap labor to the companies they work for. As an environmentalists I would say that our country is already dangerously overpopulated.
As much as I despise Donald Trump, I - at present - see a total absence of evidence for the Russia-did-it meme. I see nothing at all bad that Flynn attended a celebration of RT in Russia. So did Jill Stein. And RT carries some of America's most progressive commentators: Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, & Mike Papantonio.
I also see nothing improper with the new National Security Adviser responding to a phone call from a Russian diplomat. What could possibly be more important than opening up channels of communication?
I find the mad hysteria about the evil Russian empire to be foolhardy and dangerous. Democrats are swatting at a hornet's nest and it could lead to nuclear war. Also, Democrats seem to be engaging in a new McCarthyism.
Michael Flynn, for all his other faults, was interested in pursuing detente with Russia. The Deep State wants him gone for that very reason. And Democrats are clinging to this evidence-free witch hunt, because they can't come to terms with the fact that Hillary Clinton blew a very winnable election to a shallow jerk like Trump.
Democrats should channel their energy into more productive channels. They also should rethink their drift into neoliberal economics and foreign interventions.
From email leaks we know that Hillary Clinton was fully aware that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supplying weapons to jihadist terrorists. We also know, from public records that after Saudi Arabia and Qatar gave the Clinton Foundation tens of millions of dollars, that Ms. Clinton facilitated the sale of massive amounts of American-made arms to them. Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.
Furthermore, when Comey first "cleared" her, he nevertheless suggested that she was careless - reckless, actually - with secret government information and that she had committed perjury.
Stopping Trump from being president is no excuse for letting Hillary off the hook.
Enjoyed the article and pleasantly surprised to see Dylan get the Nobel Prize. Nice try, but riff doesn't quite match up to Dylan's words. And (really now!) though women are underpaid compared to men, it's a bit much to suggest that they are not free.
Donald Trump has categorically ruled out using nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity. Hillary Clinton has not. Neither has Barack Obama. On this issue Trump is to the left of both Democrats.
Noam Chomsky says Hillary has never seen a war she can't support. She has recklessly called Putin the new Hitler. She was the most hawkish of Obama's advisors. She says she will nuke Iran if she perceives it to be a threat to Israel - and she already deems Iran to be a threat to Israel. Using Victoria Nuland she precipitated an illegal coup in the Ukraine and then spouted nonsense about a Russian invasion. She is an interventionist while Trump is something of an isolationist. Hillary Clinton is the most dangerous person in the world.
I strongly encourage young progressives and everyone else to vote for Jill Stein. A vote for Clinton is a vote for all of us to "die in a fiery Apocalypse."
Even if Hillary makes major concessions in the official Democratic Party platform, she will not honor them - just as she will not honor her current fingers-crossed opposition to the TPP. Even if Queen HIllary chooses a strong progressive for Vice President, he or she will spend 4 or 8 years cutting ribbons and doing ceremonial duties and have no real impact on policy, foreign or domestic.
In the United States "stewardship" is a code word conservatives use when they are pretending to be environmentalists while in reality believing nature is a storehouse of goods to be plundered. Pope Francis is not from the United States and speaks little English, so he wouldn't be aware of that nuance. Reading Laudato Si I did a double-take when he started using the word "stewardship," but as I continued reading I found he was not using the word in the way American conservatives do. Francis clearly believes that a sin against nature is a sin against God. And he believes God loves the trees and the birds just like he loves us.
Francis says all life is sacred. It is a seamless reality from the tiniest creature to unborn fetus to newborns, to children, to adults, and the elderly. Because of the dangers of overpopulation and the necessity of thinking about the needs of other family members, I differ with the pope on abortion, but I agree that all life is sacred. That's why both of us believe in universal and affordable healthcare from conception to the grave.
On the matter of creating a just society that cares about the needs of the poor it is difficult to think of more than a handful of Democrats in Congress that are as liberal as the pope.
By the way, I must confess that I am not very good at predicting the future. I thought Obama was going to be a good president rather than a warmonger and a shill for Wall Street.
Good grief. You have no idea how many times I have said, "Let's see what Juan Cole is saying. He's someone I trust." But, from what I read here, it looks like Cole hasn't even read Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si. He is just spouting off without his usual intellectual rigor. Of course the Pope calls for structural change and not just charity! His deep, abiding compassion for the poor clearly aims for changes in governmental policies. He very specifically challenges trickle-down economics. His ideas about climate change are liberal and also mean little if they aren't taken to involve action by the government - something conservatives (even honest conservatives) are categorically opposed to.
In Brazil, Leonardo Boff, one of the founding fathers and prime movers of Liberation Theology has heaped enormous praise on Pope Francis.
Think about this: Pope Francis is way to the left of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are the ones who are (in reality) moderate conservatives, not Francis.
I do disagree with the Pope about population control and the role of women in the Church. But Francis has hinted he is moving towards acceptance of homosexuals, divorced people, etc. and he treats atheists with sincere respect.
Institutions like the Catholic Church change at a glacial pace. In this context, Francis' polices come as a bolt of lightning. And he's just getting started.
First of all, I believe in compassion for unfortunate people. Secondly, I believe the U.S. bears moral responsibility for the hoards of desperate immigrants leaving places like Syria and Libya. Our military interventions are - more than anything else - what caused this. Thirdly, I think Islam is a beautiful religion, and I have no problem with dark-skinned people.
Those things said, there are a number of problems with opening our borders to a massive influx of foreigners. It weakens the power of labor and results in low pay and weak benefits for America's working class, while it gives cheap labor to the companies they work for. As an environmentalists I would say that our country is already dangerously overpopulated.
As much as I despise Donald Trump, I - at present - see a total absence of evidence for the Russia-did-it meme. I see nothing at all bad that Flynn attended a celebration of RT in Russia. So did Jill Stein. And RT carries some of America's most progressive commentators: Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, & Mike Papantonio.
I also see nothing improper with the new National Security Adviser responding to a phone call from a Russian diplomat. What could possibly be more important than opening up channels of communication?
I find the mad hysteria about the evil Russian empire to be foolhardy and dangerous. Democrats are swatting at a hornet's nest and it could lead to nuclear war. Also, Democrats seem to be engaging in a new McCarthyism.
Michael Flynn, for all his other faults, was interested in pursuing detente with Russia. The Deep State wants him gone for that very reason. And Democrats are clinging to this evidence-free witch hunt, because they can't come to terms with the fact that Hillary Clinton blew a very winnable election to a shallow jerk like Trump.
Democrats should channel their energy into more productive channels. They also should rethink their drift into neoliberal economics and foreign interventions.
From email leaks we know that Hillary Clinton was fully aware that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supplying weapons to jihadist terrorists. We also know, from public records that after Saudi Arabia and Qatar gave the Clinton Foundation tens of millions of dollars, that Ms. Clinton facilitated the sale of massive amounts of American-made arms to them. Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.
Furthermore, when Comey first "cleared" her, he nevertheless suggested that she was careless - reckless, actually - with secret government information and that she had committed perjury.
Stopping Trump from being president is no excuse for letting Hillary off the hook.
Enjoyed the article and pleasantly surprised to see Dylan get the Nobel Prize. Nice try, but riff doesn't quite match up to Dylan's words. And (really now!) though women are underpaid compared to men, it's a bit much to suggest that they are not free.
Donald Trump has categorically ruled out using nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity. Hillary Clinton has not. Neither has Barack Obama. On this issue Trump is to the left of both Democrats.
Noam Chomsky says Hillary has never seen a war she can't support. She has recklessly called Putin the new Hitler. She was the most hawkish of Obama's advisors. She says she will nuke Iran if she perceives it to be a threat to Israel - and she already deems Iran to be a threat to Israel. Using Victoria Nuland she precipitated an illegal coup in the Ukraine and then spouted nonsense about a Russian invasion. She is an interventionist while Trump is something of an isolationist. Hillary Clinton is the most dangerous person in the world.
I strongly encourage young progressives and everyone else to vote for Jill Stein. A vote for Clinton is a vote for all of us to "die in a fiery Apocalypse."
Thanks for this.
Even if Hillary makes major concessions in the official Democratic Party platform, she will not honor them - just as she will not honor her current fingers-crossed opposition to the TPP. Even if Queen HIllary chooses a strong progressive for Vice President, he or she will spend 4 or 8 years cutting ribbons and doing ceremonial duties and have no real impact on policy, foreign or domestic.
Here is a perfect matching article:
Susan Sarandon, A Refugee Mother And The Virgin Mary
http://huff.to/1OcOGdU
Best thing I have read this Christmas season. Thanks.
In the United States "stewardship" is a code word conservatives use when they are pretending to be environmentalists while in reality believing nature is a storehouse of goods to be plundered. Pope Francis is not from the United States and speaks little English, so he wouldn't be aware of that nuance. Reading Laudato Si I did a double-take when he started using the word "stewardship," but as I continued reading I found he was not using the word in the way American conservatives do. Francis clearly believes that a sin against nature is a sin against God. And he believes God loves the trees and the birds just like he loves us.
Francis says all life is sacred. It is a seamless reality from the tiniest creature to unborn fetus to newborns, to children, to adults, and the elderly. Because of the dangers of overpopulation and the necessity of thinking about the needs of other family members, I differ with the pope on abortion, but I agree that all life is sacred. That's why both of us believe in universal and affordable healthcare from conception to the grave.
On the matter of creating a just society that cares about the needs of the poor it is difficult to think of more than a handful of Democrats in Congress that are as liberal as the pope.
By the way, I must confess that I am not very good at predicting the future. I thought Obama was going to be a good president rather than a warmonger and a shill for Wall Street.
Good grief. You have no idea how many times I have said, "Let's see what Juan Cole is saying. He's someone I trust." But, from what I read here, it looks like Cole hasn't even read Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si. He is just spouting off without his usual intellectual rigor. Of course the Pope calls for structural change and not just charity! His deep, abiding compassion for the poor clearly aims for changes in governmental policies. He very specifically challenges trickle-down economics. His ideas about climate change are liberal and also mean little if they aren't taken to involve action by the government - something conservatives (even honest conservatives) are categorically opposed to.
In Brazil, Leonardo Boff, one of the founding fathers and prime movers of Liberation Theology has heaped enormous praise on Pope Francis.
Think about this: Pope Francis is way to the left of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are the ones who are (in reality) moderate conservatives, not Francis.
I do disagree with the Pope about population control and the role of women in the Church. But Francis has hinted he is moving towards acceptance of homosexuals, divorced people, etc. and he treats atheists with sincere respect.
Institutions like the Catholic Church change at a glacial pace. In this context, Francis' polices come as a bolt of lightning. And he's just getting started.