Donald Trump's Dangerous Game

At first, I must admit, I enjoyed the rise of Trump.

As a Democrat, I loved seeing him skewer his fellow Republicans and cause chaos in his party. Yes, his behavior was grotesque and absurd, but I could laugh it off because, after all, there was absolutely no way he could actually win. So sit back and enjoy the ride, I thought. It won't last long.

A part of me also respected the fact that Trump spoke his mind. In a world where almost every politician is corrupt and lies through their teeth, Trump's brash honesty felt refreshing. Sure, his words are racist and hateful and divisive, but at least he's telling you what he really believes.

As summer turned to fall, it became increasingly clear that Trump was here to stay. And amazingly, the more outrageous his rhetoric grew, the more popular he became. Mexicans are rapists. John McCain isn't a war hero. Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of her whatever. It didn't matter. Trump was defying political convention, rising higher in the polls with every controversial statement. It was almost too surreal to comprehend, too unbelievable to grasp.

Soon, every interview and campaign rally became must-see TV. You felt compelled to tune in just to see what Trump would say next. It quickly became a game of "how far can he go?"

This week, we may have finally found the answer to that question.

With his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country, it's now clear that Trump has gone off the deep end.

All of a sudden, his act is no longer funny. It is shameful, sad and dangerous.

Normally, I cringe at Hitler comparisons. But with the rise of Trump I fully believe we are witnessing a Hitler-like movement take hold in our country.

A highly nationalistic strongman is rising to power by stoking racist hatreds and paranoia. He speaks in apocalyptic terms and promises to restore the country to its past greatness. He uses minorities and immigrants as scapegoats. He vilifies large groups of people based on their religion. This is the playbook of a fascist.

Sadly, we are already starting to see the results of Trump's highly-inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric. In Texas, heavily-armed citizen mobs are stalking mosque-goers. In Philadelphia, pigs heads are being thrown at mosques. And all across the country, Middle-Eastern-looking American citizens are being harassed in schools and on busses.

It's scary to think where this dangerous path will lead.

At first, Trump was just giving the GOP a bad name. But now, with his proposal to ban all Muslims, he is giving us all a bad name, Democrats and Republicans alike. He is tarnishing the image of America. He is making us look like ignorant, bigoted laughingstocks on the world stage.

If a bright side exists, it's that only 10-15% of the population supports Trump. And although he very well could win the nomination, Trump's Hitler-like antics have made him unelectable in a general election.

But between now and November, Democrats can't just continue to sit back and watch the show. We must turn off the TV entirely.

Thanksgiving, Syrian Refugees and What It Means To Be American

Following the Paris Attacks, a growing number of Americans have demanded that the United States reject Syrian refugees.

On the surface, this sentiment seems to make sense. With hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring out of Syria, many Americans are fearful that ISIS could exploit the greatest mass migration since WWII by posing as migrants in order to gain passage into Western countries, where they could then commit acts of terror.

Amidst the backdrop of Paris, it sounds like a legitimate fear to have. However, when you really dig deep, this collective anxiety does not hold up to scrutiny.

First off, Syrian refugees are not terrorists. They are victims of terror. They are predominantly women and children whose lives have been destroyed by Assad barrel bombs and ISIS barbarism. 

Secondly, America has one of the most thorough and extensive refugee screening processes in the world. As Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson recently explained, refugees must pass multiple levels of background checks, medical tests and interviews in order to gain entrance into the United States. The entire process takes two years to complete.

Thirdly, why would ISIS waste two-years trying to pass the screening process when they already have thousands of foreign fighters with European passports who are ready to commit acts of terror right now? After all, none of the Paris attackers were refugees from Syria. They were all native Frenchmen and Belgians. They weren't foreigners, they were homegrown. 

When thinking about the refugee crisis, we must remember that one of ISIS's main goals is to "eliminate the gray-zone of co-existence between Muslims and the West." They hope that by terrorizing the West with Paris-style attacks it will cause backlash against Western Muslims as a whole, forcing them to abandon the West and join the Caliphate, which ultimately strengthens ISIS.

Muslims living in the West would soon no longer be welcome in their own societies. Treated with increased suspicion, distrust and hostility by their fellow citizens as a result of the deadly shooting, Western Muslims would soon be forced to "either apostatize... or migrate to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens."

Sadly, we are seeing this ugly trend take shape in America. Since the Paris Attacks, anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise. Donald Trump has led the charge nationally, catapulting even higher in the polls thanks to his inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric. Ben Carson even compared Syrian refugees to rabid dogs. In Texas, armed gunmen are now "hunting for terrorists" by stalking worshippers who enter mosques. This anti-Muslim backlash is exactly what ISIS.

Every time Trump calls for mass surveillance of Muslims or Chris Christie refuses to accept 3-year-old refugee orphans, ISIS jumps for joy on the streets of Raqqa. It strengthen's their apocalyptic narrative that the East is at war with the West, and that the West is hostile toward Islam. It allows ISIS to say to the refugees "Look, the West is evil. They don't want you. They don't respect you. You must stay in Syria. Your only true home is the Caliphate."

Bombs and bullets can only accomplish so much in the fight against ISIS. In order to fully destroy the Islamic State, we must decimate their ideology. Simply put, we can kill a thousand ISIS jhadists every day, but as long as the ideology that motivates them lives on, more and more fighters will take their place. The only way to end this revolving door of horror is to expose the ISIS ideology as barbaric and bankrupt and un-Islamic. 

We all have a role to play in this fight. As everyday Americans, our job is to condemn anti-Muslim rhetoric. In doing so, we prove that America is not at war with Islam. We prove that Western values like tolerance and pluralism are the ultimate antidote to extremism. Nothing would infuriate ISIS more.

As Americans, we have a moral obligation to accept refugees fleeing Syria. To turn our backs on them in their time of need would go against everything our country stands for. After all, the Statue of Liberty says "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It doesn't say "sorry, not our problem."

History has taught us that when it comes to refugees, our actions have real consequences. In 1939, the SS St Louis was carrying over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust. It was forced to turn around before it reached Florida. More than 250 people on that ship ended up being killed by the Nazis. All because we turned them away. Most Americans look back on this episode with disgust and shame. Why, with the benefit of hindsight, are we willing to make the same mistake by closing the door on today's refugees fleeing Syria?

Finally, as we sit around the table this Thanksgiving, surrounded by family, delicious food and the sound of football in the background, we should also remember that many of our earliest ancestors, including the ones who celebrated the first Thanksgiving in 1621, were themselves immigrants and refugees.

We must honor that legacy by showing compassion to today's Syrian refugees. 

Anything less would be un-American.

Why Black Lives Matter

Every few weeks we are reminded of what it's like to be black in America.

We see Trayvon Martin gunned down a block from his home, his life taken from him by a neighborhood watchman who deemed him "suspicious" despite the fact he had only skittles and iced tea in his hands.

We see Eric Garner choked to death on the streets of New York city for selling loose cigarettes, his endless cries of "I can't breathe" completely ignored by the NYPD officers surrounding him.

We see 12-year-old Tamir Rice executed on a Cleveland playground, sentenced to death for playing with a toy gun.

We see Sandra Bland assaulted on the side of a dusty Texas road, tossed in jail and mysteriously killed, all for a minor traffic violation.

We see Walter Scott shot in the back multiple times as he's running away from police after being pulled over for a broken tail light.

We see Freddie Gray thrown into a Baltimore police van and given a "rough ride," his spine severed, his life ended, simply for possessing a legal switchblade.

Now we see a teenage girl violently assaulted by a school resource officer in South Carolina. Why? Because she was using her cell-phone and refused to exit the classroom.

Across America, there are two major reactions to these types of events when they take place. Half of the country is disgusted, ashamed, depressed, saddened, confused and upset. We keep asking ourselves the same questions. Why does this keep happening? Why are African Americans treated so unfairly? 

The other half of the country sees these events through a completely different lens. Their is no shared sense of guilt or bewilderment. No long, deep soul searching. No uneasiness over the fact that their fellow Americans are being treated unjustly. They see a teenager killed by a neighborhood watchman or a student tossed aside like a rag-doll and think they must have done something to deserve it. They should have respected authority. They were probably guilty anyway. They got what was coming to them.

These two conflicting perspectives grow more and more entrenched after each tragic event, deepening the divide between law enforcement and communities of color, causing further polarization among everyday Americans.

WHY BLACK LIVES MATTER

When the topic of racial injustice is brought up at the 2016 presidential debates, the candidates on both sides are often asked whether "all lives matter" or "black lives matter." 

Republicans say "all lives matter." They are dismissive of the black lives matter movement. They argue that it's divisive and antagonistic and anti-police. They do not believe it raises legitimate concerns about police brutality or the corrupt nature of our justice system.

However, with each passing day, it's getting harder and harder to ignore the reality of the situation we face. These incidents keep happening. We can argue over the reasons why they keep happening, but that doesn't stop them from taking place. 

Recently, President Obama brilliantly explained the reason why black lives (and not all lives) matter.

I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase "black lives matter" was not because they were suggesting nobody else's life matters. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that's not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we've got to address.

Simply put, the tragic events we keep witnessing do not happen with the same frequency in white communities. White kids wearing hoods aren't deemed to be "suspicious." They aren't gunned down in their own neighborhoods. They aren't beaten up by cops in their own classroom. White women aren't pulled over for minor traffic violations, assaulted and mysteriously killed in police custody.

I know this because I grew up in a white community. I made many of the same "mistakes" but never once did I fear for my life. Why? Because I'm white. 

Because of the color of my skin, I am given a free pass, a presumption of innocence, a perpetual benefit of the doubt. I don't have to worry about going out at night, or the clothes I wear, or how I have to speak to police if I'm pulled over for a broken tail-light.

African Americans are not afforded these same rights.

That is the essence of white privilege.

WE STILL MUST OVERCOME

Despite taking place hundreds of years ago, the sinful legacy of slavery lives on in America. African Americans may no longer be held in bondage, but they are still not afforded full citizenship under the law. In many ways, they are still treated as 3/5 of a person.

A powerful new video by the The Equal Justice Initiative brilliantly illustrates this sad reality. As the narrator explains, slavery didn't end in 1865, it evolved. We see it everyday in the form of violent policing and mass incarceration. 

Recently, FBI Director James Comey blamed the rise of violence and racial tensions over the past year on "the Ferguson effect." He argued that officers are "under siege" and unable to "protect and serve" because they worry about being caught on a career-ending cell-phone video.

This completely misses the point. Simply put, if the only thing that motivates you to act properly is the threat of being caught on tape then you are not fit to be a police officer in the first place. 

To fix the situation, we must reform the way we police. We must also reform our corrupt criminal justice system that preys upon African Americans and leads to mass incarceration.

But changing our laws can only do so much. In order to fully exorcise the racial demons that plague us, we must overcome our own individual prejudices. We must learn to empathize with our fellow Americans who are drowning in injustice.

We must reject the long lasting biases, left over from centuries of oppression, that cause us to see African Americans as innately guilty and somehow less human, less worthy of full citizenship and protection under the law.

We must learn to see Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, the young girl in the South Carolina classroom and the countless other unnamed victims of racial injustice not as thugs who got what they deserved, but as fellow Americans who are being denied their rights.

We must remember what Martin Luther King Jr. told us: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Barack Obama: Climate Champion or Climate Hypocrite?

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama famously stated that his ultimate goal as president, if he were lucky enough to win, was to act as the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan: a transformational figure who "changed the trajectory of America" by placing us on a "fundamentally different path."

In many ways, Obama has achieved this goal. He brought us back from the worst financial collapse since the Depression. He saved the auto industry. He passed health care reform. He ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He killed Bin Laden. Under his watch, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.1%, the Stock Market has soared and Marriage Equality is now the law of the land.

This isn't to say that Obama hasn't made mistakes. He has. Chief among them is the fact that he placed way too much faith in Republicans in the early and mid years of his presidency, naively hoping they would meet him in the middle and help move the country forward. Instead, he got rebuffed at every turn, resulting in years and years of political gridlock where nothing got done.

When it comes to climate, Obama appears as a truly dedicated, compassionate and focused leader in the fight to save our planet. He listens to the science and shames those who don't. He makes countless speeches about the severity of the environmental threat we face, urging us all to act.

Legislatively, Obama has enacted sweeping new EPA regulations to cut carbon pollution, a key component to his overall climate plan. In addition, he has also put into place the most ambitious fuel efficiency standards in our nation's history. In 2009, he signed into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which protected 2 million new acres of land across nine different states. Overall, he has designated nine new National Parks during his presidency.

All the while, Obama has been a vocal champion of renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

But if he's so committed to combating climate change, why is he allowing Shell to drill for oil in the Arctic?


HALFWAY MEASURES ARE NOT ENOUGH

To be a transformational president, you can't ride the fence on important issues. You must adhere to your northern compass and never let public opinion or outside influence lead you astray. You must always be guided by the courage of your convictions (regardless of whether something is unpopular) so that no one ever questions where your loyalties lie. This is what makes you authentic, which in turn allows you to be successful, and therefore, transformational.

It cannot be questioned whether or not Obama is transforming the climate conversation. He is. He has brought the issue to the forefront and taken meaningful, legislative action to protect our planet and limit the worst effects of climate change. For this, he should be commended.

However, he has also made the terrible decision to allow Shell to exploit and destroy one of the last truly pristine wild spaces left on Earth: the Arctic.

This is an awful, crushing blow to the overall environmental movement because it allows our never ending addiction to fossil fuels to continue unabated. Instead of taking a principled stand against further oil extraction, Obama has gifted a new, untapped piece of wilderness to the filthy rich oil industry so they can profit even further off the plundering of our planet.

Giving Shell the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic means that even more oil will be sold and burned on the global market. More fossil fuels will evaporate into the air. More greenhouse gases will be trapped in our atmosphere, causing our planet to warm and our storms to grow more intense and out of control.

It also means that the Arctic is now under severe threat of a catastrophic oil spill that could spell environmental disaster for one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet. After all, despite Shell's braggadocios safety promises, we all know that oil rigs are prone to leaking or breaking.

The BP oil spill in 2010 occurred in the tranquil, warm waters of the Gulf and it still took months to cap. Some five years later, the ocean and coastal areas still haven't recovered. Imagine if a similar spill took place in the Arctic. It could take weeks just for icebreakers and equipment to reach the full disaster zone. It could take months, even years, to cap and fully contain the spill, causing unimaginable environmental devastation.

ALL OR NOTHING

When speaking about climate change, Obama always uses the science to bolster his argument and motivate others to act. He constantly cites the 97% of scientists who say that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

However, Obama is also selective in his use of science, which makes us question just how committed he is to the overall cause.

For example, the scientists say that in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change we must keep at least 75% of all remaining fossil fuels in the ground. Anything less than that is an assured death sentence for our planet.

The scientists also say that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at 10x the rate than previously thought, which will cause the sea level to rise at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migration and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.

By allowing Shell to open up a brand new oil excavation site in the Arctic, Obama is directly going against the scientists. In this scenario, Obama is acting like a doctor who advises a lung cancer patient to quit smoking, then offers them a carton of Marlboro cigarettes on their way out the door.

When asked why he decided to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic, Obama told reporters that "our economy still needs to rely on oil." This "economy" argument has long been used to justify doing nothing. This type of thinking is not going to solve our climate crisis. After all, what good will protecting the economy do if our planet is destroyed beyond repair? A million dollars won't mean much in a Mad Max-post Apocalypse world where the planet is no longer habitable.

When it comes to combating climate change, we must take an all or nothing approach. Halfway measures will not keep the planet from warming or the seas from rising. Protecting wilderness areas, enacting bold fuel efficiency standards and championing solar and wind are great. But they are meaningless in the big picture if you then turn around and allow places like the Arctic to be destroyed and millions- even billions- more barrels of oil to be extracted and burned.

If Obama wants to be a true climate champion, he must stop playing both sides of the issue. He can't publicly decry the threat of climate change one day and then allow Shell to profit off the destruction of our planet the next.

Tell President Obama that his decision to allow Arctic drilling is wrong and must be reversed. Sign the petition here >> https://www.savethearctic.org/

The Republican Party Is Frankenstein And Donald Trump Is Their Monster

According to Freud, the human psyche has three parts: the "id," the "ego" and the "super-ego."

The "id" is the dark, primordial yearning that exists deep down in our core. It represents our unfiltered animal instinct. The "super-ego" is our moral compass. It is our conscience, keeping us in line. The "ego" acts as the arbiter between the "id" and "super-ego." It seeks to satisfy both desires in a realistic, culturally appropriate and personally beneficial way.

When applying Freud's psychic apparatus to today's Republicans, it's clear that Donald Trump is the party's "id." He is racist, sexist and ignorant, with no regard for societal norms or common decency. He says exactly what he thinks, whether you like it or not. With Trump, there is no "super-ego" keeping him in line.

Normally, a person like Trump would be laughed off a presidential circuit, publicly shamed for being such an offensive, divisive figure. However, as we've seen the past few weeks, the exact opposite is happening. The more outrageous Trump gets, the more his popularity soars among Republicans.

Trump has hit a nerve with the far-right base. He has tapped into their hatred for government and disdain for political correctness. He is channeling their anger in a way no other Republican has in recent years.

After watching the first GOP Debate, it's clear that none of Trump's competitors can touch him. They aren't brave enough or skilled enough to take him on. Trump is a ten-time Big League All-Star. Bush, Rubio, Walker and the rest are Single-A ballplayers.

When Trump first launched his campaign, he was considered a side-show. Now he has a commanding lead in the race for the Republican nomination.


THE ANTI-POLITICIAN

For years, Trump has been a favorite among Tea Party Republicans.

In the early Obama days, he was lionized for spearheading the "Birther" movement. Now, Trump has risen to near-mythical prominence by demonizing immigrants and taking on Mexico.

He questions John McCain's heroism. He calls Mexican immigrants "rapists." He makes misogynistic, sexist comments about women. He condemns our political leaders as "idiots" and "morons." And yet, amazingly, these comments do not hurt him. In fact, they only make him stronger.

Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination because he is the anti-politician. He is the knight in shining armor for Republicans on the far-right who think they are losing their country. Trump may be a billionaire, but he speaks their language. He shares their hatred for establishment politics and the "liberal media." He talks like them. He acts like them. He is politically incorrect, just like them.


A GIFT FROM HEAVEN FOR DEMOCRATS

I may be an Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders Democrat, but I must admit: I find Trump wildly entertaining.

Yes, he is absurdly ignorant and offensive, and I vehemently disagree with almost everything he says, but I respect his authenticity. As Americans, we are so used to politicians playing both sides of an issue, pandering to whatever audience they're speaking to, telling us one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow.

Trump is vile, but it's refreshing to hear someone tell you what they truly believe. He isn't owned by lobbyists and special interests. He isn't a puppet of the Koch Brothers. He is so rich that he is beholden to no one.

In the end, one would expect the Republican "ego" to step in and overrule Trump, the party's "id." After all, as much as he is beloved by the Republican base right now, at some point the party will realize that Trump is too divisive to win a general election, so making him the nominee would be a futile endeavor. Instead, they will nominate someone like Jeb Bush, a "safe bet" in the mold of John McCain or Mitt Romney.

But even if that happens, it still may not be enough to stop Trump.

He is too popular, too out of control to turn back now. He has lit a flame that no one on the right can put out.

During the first GOP Debate, Trump reiterated the fact that if he does not get the Republican nomination he might run as a third-party candidate.

All across the country, Liberals will be cheering Trump on, knowing the more popular he gets, the more likely he becomes the Ross Perot or Ralph Nader of 2016.

Is Hillary Clinton Serious About Fighting Climate Change? Or Just Telling Us What We Want To Hear?

Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton held her first official town hall meeting in New Hampshire. It took place in Dover, a town of just under 30,000 located in the southeast corner of the Granite State.

The leading Democratic candidate for president took a variety of questions from the swing-state crowd, ranging from the Iran Deal and marriage equality to mass incarceration and the minimum wage, but it was a series of questions on climate change that caused an uproar.

First, a University of New Hampshire student asked Hillary a simple "yes" or "no" question about whether or not she would ban the extraction of fossil fuels on public lands. Much to the chagrin of climate activists, Clinton replied: "the answer is no until we get alternatives into place."

Moments later, another UNH student pressed Hillary again, saying she was "disappointed" by her "refusal to take leadership on climate change." She then asked Hillary- point blank- if her lack of climate action was due to the fact that she takes massive campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

"No, no it's not," she replied, before going on a longwinded tangent about how the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy will take time and we can't just do it all overnight because it will "disrupt our economy."

Underwhelmed by her vague, non-committal answer, the crowd voiced their displeasure in deafening fashion, erupting in boisterous chants of "Act on Climate. Act On Climate. Act on Climate."

For the first time in her campaign, it was clear that Hillary wasn't willing, prepared or able to take on climate change in the substantive way that is needed in order to prevent environmental doomsday.


CHANGING HER TUNE

Just a few weeks after the New Hampshire town hall, Hillary finally began focusing her campaign on climate change.

First came a powerful, short video called "Stand for Reality," in which Hillary highlights the threat of climate change and excoriates Republicans for denying science.

"You don't have to be a scientist to take on this urgent challenge that threatens us all. You just have to be willing to act."

Then, she unveiled two ambitious climate goals: install at least half a billion solar panels by the end of her first team and power every home in America with renewable energy within 10-years.

Climate activists all across the country applauded the move. Many were downright ecstatic. After months of barely even mentioning climate change, Hillary was taking on the issue in a substantive, meaningful way.

Sadly, despite Hillary's newfound focus on climate change, environmental activists must question whether she's truly serious about fighting climate change or just charming her progressive base to shore up votes for 2016.

There are two reasons for this.

First, Hillary continues to accept millions of dollars in campaign contributions from fossil fuel lobbyists. As a recent Huffington Post article points out, some of her biggest bundlers "have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports."

Second, Hillary refuses to oppose or even comment on the Keystone XL Pipeline. As Secretary of State, she was "inclined" to approve the pipeline, however, as a Democratic candidate for president, she has yet to voice an opinion either way.

This infuriates climate activists.

While many non-environmentalists see the Keystone Pipeline as an overblown issue unworthy of such polarization and notoriety, it holds deep, symbolic meaning for climate activists.

The Earth is at a crossroads. We are standing at a fork in the road, overlooking the cliff of climate disaster. We can either continue extracting, polluting and warming our planet or we can transition to wind, solar and other renewable energy forms which will save us from climate judgment day.

With Hillary, we still don't know which road she would take.

"In the largest sense, it's her hedging-of-bets that makes the rest of us so wary. Dealing with climate change in a serious way will take enormous commitment in the face of many strong opponents; we need strong signals that our president would be resolute in this crucial task." -Bill McKibben

WILL THE REAL HILLARY PLEASE STAND UP

Recently, a former lead NASA climate scientist issued a bombshell report showing that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster that previously thought, which will cause the sea level to rise "at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years."

You don't have to be a scientist to realize that this is a "holy shit" moment for our planet.

This comes on the heels of a report that 2015 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded.

The science is clear. But even if you don't believe it, just open your eyes. Wherever you look, it's obvious that the planet is sick and the fever is rising.

This past week, Iraq has been plagued by four-straight 120+ degree days, 25 degrees higher than normal for this time of year. In Iran, one city is experiencing a heat index of 163 degrees, which is close to a world record. This comes just a few months after a massive heat wave killed 2,000+ in India and another heat wave in Pakistan killed more than 1,200.

Here in America, extreme weather is everywhere. We are coming off a winter in which the northeast got record amounts of snowfall. Months ago, Texas experienced the worst flooding ever recorded. In California, the drought is so bad they only have one year of water left. Throughout Alaska and much of the West, out-of-control wildfires are raging, burning millions of acres of land. Florida and Louisiana are falling into the ocean as we speak.

Hillary's newfound focus on climate change is commendable. Her proposal to install half a billion solar panels is worthy of applause. So is her goal of powering every home in America with renewable energy within 10 years.

But the climate crisis we face is too daunting and too severe to take half-measures. It demands 100% commitment across the board. Solar panels are great, but their impact will be limited if we continue to frack, build more pipelines and allow new drilling projects in the Arctic.

We need a president in 2016 who recognizes the depth of the climate crisis we face. We need a president who isn't beholden to the fossil fuel industry. We need a president who acts boldly and takes real action to prevent climate apocalypse. We need a president who doesn't play politics with the future of the planet.

I'm thrilled to see Hillary finally take on climate change, but as long as she continues to accept money from fossil fuel lobbyists and refuses to oppose the Keystone Pipeline, the country will be left wondering just how serious she is about preventing environmental doomsday.

Austerity Isn't The Only Reason Why Greece Is In Shambles

In progressive, Democratic circles all across America (and throughout the West), the Greek Referendum vote has been championed as not only a major victory for the working class, but also a global indictment against austerity.

By rejecting another round of harmful budget cuts as part of a new bailout package, Greece loudly and unequivocally said "enough" to the elitist overlords who are bleeding the common man dry.

Bernie Sanders celebrated the decision, saying "I applaud the people of Greece for saying 'no' to more austerity... In a world of massive wealth and income inequality Europe must support Greece's efforts to build an economy which creates more jobs and income, not more unemployment and suffering."

Paul Krugman also cheered the "No" vote: "The truth is that Europe's self styled technocrats are like medieval doctors who insisted on bleeding their patients- and when their treatment made the patient sicker, demanded even more bleeding."

In an open letter published in The Nation, world renowned economist Thomas Piketty echoed Krugman's thoughts: "The medicine prescribed by the German Finance Ministry and Brussels has bled the patient, not cured the disease."

"The Greeks have complied with much of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's call for austerity- cut salaries, cut government spending, slashed pensions, privatized and deregulated, and raised taxes. But in recent years the series of so-called adjustment programs inflicted on the likes of Greece has served only to make a Great Depression the likes of which have been unseen in Europe since 1929-1933."

Throughout the process, Merkel has emerged as a de-facto villain in the eyes of the left-leaning media: a German version of Paul Ryan on steroids. She has been painted as unruly, even bloodthirsty, holding Greece hostage, demanding more and more cuts that hurt the poor and the working class in exchange for debt relief.

However, despite the fact that austerity has plunged Greece deeper into financial meltdown, it isn't the only reason why the financial crisis exists.

The Greeks must shoulder part of the blame as well.


NO COUNTRY FOR TAXED MEN

In a fascinating piece for Vanity Fair (published in 2010), critically acclaimed author Michael Lewis travels to Athens to speak to Greek monks, tax collectors and government officials about the country's financial system.

His findings are mind-blowing.

Corruption runs rampant throughout Greece. The entire country runs on bribes. Everyone lies about their income. No one pays taxes. All the books are cooked. Money is laundered through massive, under-the-table real estate deals. No records are ever kept. Everything is "handwritten and hard to decipher."

"The Greek people never learned to pay their taxes. And they never did because no one is punished. It's a cavalier offense- like a gentlemen not opening a door for a lady."

This massive, widespread and systematic lying and cheating has crippled not just the Greek economy but the Greek culture as well. Simply put, civic ties are crumbling because Greeks don't trust each other. It's become an "every man for himself" society.

"No success of any kind is regarded without suspicion. Everyone is pretty sure everyone is cheating on his taxes, or bribing politicians, or taking bribes, or lying about the value of his real estate. And this total absence of faith in one another is self-reinforcing. The epidemic of lying and cheating and stealing makes any sort of civic life impossible; the collapse of civic life only encourages more lying, cheating and stealing."

Sure, the austerity measures pushed by Merkel and the rest of the Eurozone have poured gasoline on the Greek fire, but the initial spark wasn't lit in a vacuum. It was lit within.

As Lewis explains, "[Greece] behaves as a collection of atomized particles, each of which has grown accustomed to pursuing its own interest at the expense of the common good."

A society that functions this way cannot succeed. Even the best financial system in the world is doomed to fail if the people running it are only looking out for themselves.


CHANGING FROM WITHIN

Greece is the birthplace of democracy. To save their financial system and their soul, the Greeks must return to their democratic roots.

Voting against austerity was the first step on this journey toward salvation. More harmful cuts will only plunge Greece further into the abyss. A new course must be charted. The current one just isn't working.

But democracy is more than just voting. You can't just cast a ballot every few years and then exit the democratic process entirely. Democracy comes with responsibilities. It requires citizenship.

To turn the country around, the Greek culture must change. Corruption must be rooted out. No more bribes. No more cheating your taxes. No more fake real estate deals. No more cooking the books.

In the end, austerity is only one side of the Greek crisis coin.

To save their country, their economy and their way of life, Greeks must also change within.

Taking Down the Confederate Flag Isn't Enough: We Must Remove All Public Ties To The Confederacy, Everywhere

When I first heard that the Confederate flag was still flying high on the grounds of the South Carolina state Capitol I was shocked.

I may be a "Yankee liberal" from the North, but I figured that, surely, in the year 2015, a symbol of unabashed racial hatred would have been taken down decades ago. How could it possibly still be hung in a public space of a modern society, in a state capitol no less? 

I've never spent much time in the South, but I know the Confederate flag is still popular. Even in my home state of Massachusetts, a liberal bastion of progressive ideals, I still pass by trucks with Confederate flag stickers or license plates. I know the flag is kept alive by individual citizens who choose to wave it, but I thought for sure statehouses all across the country outlawed it.

Sadly, I was wrong.

If a silver lining exists in the wake of the horrific Charleston attack, in which a self-proclaimed white supremacist killed 9 African American churchgoers, it's the fact that millions of Americans all across the country have rose up in unison to demand that the Confederate flag be removed from the South Carolina capitol grounds. 

But that's not enough. We must remove all public ties to the Confederacy, everywhere.

SURROUNDED BY INJUSTICE

Imagine, for a second, that you are the great-great grandson or great-great granddaughter of a slave.

Everyday, you are forced to walk down "Jefferson Davis Boulevard."

Everyday, you pass by your state capitol building and see a Confederate flag waving high and proud.

Everyday, you drive by the same monument that honors the people who fought to keep your family enslaved.

Everyday, you go to school to try to escape the Confederate ghosts that chase you, but how can you concentrate or learn when your school is named after Stonewall Jackson?

Maybe you leave school and seek solace in a park. But how can you enjoy any peace or tranquility when it's named after Robert E. Lee?

With nowhere to go, you decide to just get in your car and drive. You aren't going anywhere in particular, but you know you want to get as far away from this place as you can. But even then, you realize you are driving on "Jefferson Davis Highway."

No matter where you turn, you are surrounded by reminders of a torturous, totalitarian regime that kept your ancestors in chains.

Even if you have no ancestral link to slavery, this is a gross injustice that must end, once and for all.

NOT MY HERITAGE

Many defenders of the Confederate flag say it deserves to live on forever because it "honors Southern heritage." They always seem to ignore the fact that is dishonors the heritage of African Americans.

In the case of South Carolina, it's important to note that the flag has not been flying high for 150+ years. It was first hung in 1961 to protest against the Civil Rights Movement. Honoring Southern "heritage" had nothing to do with it.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate. It is an emblem of a murderous, treasonous regime that tortured, raped, enslaved and systematically oppressed innocent Africans, stealing them from their homeland and robbing them of their identities forever.

Taking down the Confederate flag is a necessary first step we must take on the long journey of making amends with the sins of our past.

But we can't stop there. We must remove all ties to the Confederacy in public places. 

We must take down all Confederate monuments and statues. We must re-name Confederate streets, schools, parks and highways. We must take a stand against all public relics that honor, memorialize or pay homage to the most evil institution in American history.

However, to erase them entirely would be a mistake. Instead, we should place the flags, monuments and statues in museums, much like how Germany turned Auschwitz into a museum. They must stand forever as a reminder of how oppressive, immoral and horrifying slavery was.

If you want to hang a Confederate flag on your porch or in your back yard, go for it. I vehemently disagree and think it's incredibly offensive, but the beauty of America is that we give you the right to express yourself freely. Freedom of speech allows you the freedom to be ignorant and divisive.

Getting rid of the Confederate flag won't cure racism. Neither will removing statues or re-naming high schools. But it's the right thing to do. It is the best way to honor the lives of those killed not only in Charleston, but all across our country over the past 400 years.

As long as a young African American is forced to walk down Robert E. Lee Road or attend Jefferson Davis High School, the stain of centuries of injustice will remain.

Take it down.

Take it all down.

It's Time to Embrace, Arm and Support the Kurds

The Middle East is a complex and dangerous place where alliances are confusing and violence seemingly never ends, at least in the eyes of many Americans like myself who try to make sense of it from afar.

On the surface, religion plays a major role in fanning the flames of bloodshed. Despite being brothers of Islam, the Sunnis hate the Shias and the Shias hate the Sunnis. It may be a naive generalization, but most all conflicts in the Middle East stem from this sectarian divide, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

However, religion isn't the only factor at play. Behind the veil of the Sunni/Shia divide, two hegemonic powers- Saudi Arabia and Iran- battle for influence and control. Both countries fund and support various groups, using them as vehicles in a massive proxy-war to re-shape the region in their image.

But beyond religious hatreds and warring spheres of influence, it starts to get confusing when you look at who's fighting who on the ground.

In their mythic quest to establish a caliphate, ISIS is fighting everyone, killing both Sunnis and Shias, as well as Yazidis, Christians and any other religious sect that stands in their way.

Iranian Shiite militias and the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah are fighting ISIS in Iraq and defending Assad in Syria.

Assad is fighting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Al-Qaeda aligned Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN).

The Army of Conquest, a massive new rebel coalition supported by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is fighting ISIS and hopes to topple Assad.

Thousands of miles away, the United States focuses like a laser beam on ISIS, grappling with how to proceed in the war against the barbaric terrorists. Sure, we are bombing dozens of ISIS targets each day (and we have been for nearly a year). And yes, every now and again we carry out SEAL-team raids on ISIS leaders in Syria.

But despite spending millions and now billions of dollars launching non-stop airstrikes, ISIS continues to gain ground. Just recently they took the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra as well as Ramadi, one of the biggest cities in Iraq's Anbar district.

Obama's plan has succeeded only in the fact that he has spared the lives of countless American troops by not ordering a massive ground war. But in terms of actually "degrading and destroying" ISIS, Obama's plan is not working.

It's time to change course and take a new approach. It's time to embrace, arm and support the Kurds.


AN OASIS OF HOPE

For the US, finding reliable allies on the ground to fight ISIS is extremely difficult.

The Iraqi army, which we've spent over a decade training and billions of dollars supporting, can no longer be counted on. Despite outnumbering their ISIS opponents, the Iraqi army has cut and run on multiple occasions when faced with an ISIS attack, famously tossing aside their arms last year in Mosul and again recently in Ramadi. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter summed it up best when he said that the Iraqi army "lacks the will to fight."

So if we can't rely on the Iraqi army, who can we rely on?

We can't partner with Jabhat al-Nusra. Sure, they are one of the leading rebel groups trying to topple Assad, who we can't stand, but they are also a designated Al-Qaeda terrorist group.

We can't ally with Shiite militias because it will fan sectarian flames and give the impression that we are acting as Iran's air force, which will only alienate moderate Sunnis, driving them further into ISIS's hands.

We can't possibly partner with Assad, the brutal Syrian butcher who has ruthlessly killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians with barrel bombs and chemical weapons. While Assad may represent a "lesser of two evils" when compared to ISIS, the US position remains that Assad "must go."

Our best (and maybe our only) option is to partner with the Kurds and make them our new, number one ally in the region.

EMBRACING THE KURDS

An oasis amidst a sea of never-ending despair, the Kurds are a perfect prospective ally for the US.

First off, they are one of the only forces on the ground with the courage to fight ISIS (the Peshmerga, the name of the Kurdish military, roughly translates to "one who confronts death"). They never cut and run, as evidenced by their successful defense of Kobane despite a massive, months-long ISIS onslaught.

But they're not just brave warriors who we can rely on in battle, they also have great character.

The Kurds have similar values as us Americans. They aren't run by a radical religious dogma. They believe in democracy. They are largely secular. In a region where women are oppressed in all directions, the Kurds treat their women as equals. They don't wear burkas. They aren't confined to the house. They aren't banned from driving cars or getting an education. They are valued members of society. They even fight in the military, risking their lives on the front lines just like their male counterparts.

For the Kurds, gender is not a dividing concept. All that matters in that they are Kurdish. The collective pride and honor they have for their shared heritage and traditions provides them with unshakeable courage. They are fiercely loyal to their history and their land. This gives them the will to fight when others wouldn't. They are defending not only their territory, but their way of life.

They also honor their dead with spectacular respect, even if the dead isn't their own. Just look at how they reacted to the death of Keith Broomfield, an American who, after seeing ISIS rampage across the Middle East, decided to move to Syria to fight with the Kurds.

The Kurds welcomed him with open arms. They respected his sacrifice to a cause that was not his own. When Broomfield was killed recently, the entire town of Kobane took to the streets and held a massive funeral for Broomfield. They draped his coffin in a Kurdish flag. Young Kurdish children held pictures of Broomfield as they marched.

To the Kurds, Broomfield wasn't an American "infidel" or "crusader." He was one of their own. He was a martyr and a hero- and they treated him as such.

In the history books of our coming generations our children will learn of the brave foreign warriors who came to Rojava to fight for a land that was not theirs. They came to fight for freedom and democracy, for humanity and liberty. They will never be forgotten. -The Lions of Rojava

This connection is proof that the Kurds and Americans aren't so different after all. We have the capacity to work together, to respect and sympathize with each other, despite coming from opposite ends of the Earth.

A NEW LONG-TERM ALLIANCE

The US would be wise to align itself with the Kurds. Not only are they the only force in the region with the courage to fight ISIS, but they also happen to embrace democracy. They share a lot of the same values we do: love of country, love of freedom and liberty, respect for women, equal rights, education. They are also compassionate, honorable and have great dignity.

We must fund the Kurds and give them all the support, equipment and training they need. We must shift our resources from Baghdad- a dysfunctional capital where nothing seems to get done- and move it to Kurdistan. Kobane should become the new home base of US efforts against ISIS. This is key because it would allow us to stop taking sides in the Sunni-Shia conflict and align ourselves with a democratic people who share the same values we do.

Also, with Iran and Saudi Arabia engaged in a heavyweight battle to win the Middle East and the future of Syria undecided, having a strong, prosperous Kurdistan aligned with the US would be a huge victory for America. Kurdistan could be the new buffer between the two warring hegemonic powers. It also gives the US options, leverage and a reliable partner on the ground to fight ISIS or other jihadist groups should they emerge victorious when the dust settles in Syria.

In the end, Iraq as we know it no longer exists. The borders drawn by Sykes-Picot, which carved up the Middle East into new nation states after the fall of the Ottoman Empire during WWI, are being washed away through brute force and bloodshed. The warring factions on the ground are drawing the new map. And in this new Middle East, allegiances are not based upon nationalism, or love of country, but instead by religious affiliation.

The US needs to stop being so reactionary in the Middle East. We must stop holding onto the past and instead anticipate the future, which is normally difficult but in this case it's obvious.

Joe Biden's prophetic vision- once lampooned- has been proven true: the only way to solve the Iraq problem is to allow the country to split into three autonomous regions: Sunni Iraq, Shia Iraq and Kurd Iraq.

Helping the Kurds achieve official statehood, something they've dreamed of for decades and proven they are deserving of, isn't just the right thing to do, it's strategically smart.

The old, Western-drawn borders mean nothing anymore. And when the new borders are decided, the US will be left out completely if we don't align ourselves with a worthy partner that can survive the redistricting of the region.

Now, more than ever, the US needs a reliable ally it can count on in the Middle East.

That ally is the Kurds.

It's Now or Never on Climate

Two major weather events took place on opposite sides of the world this past week.

In Texas, torrential downpours dropped more than 11 inches of rain in just 6 hours, causing apocalyptic-type flooding not seen in more than 500 years.

The images from Houston and other surrounding areas are terrifying. Once sleepy streams have turned into raging rivers, washing away roads, bridges and anything else in their path. Cars and trucks float where streets once stood. Now they are stranded like relics of a bygone era, replaced by kayaks and canoes.

Thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed. More than 20 people have been killed, with many more missing or unaccounted for. Volunteer emergency crews have been working around the clock to save people trapped in their homes.

In Wimberly, the Blanco River produced a 44-foot high surge, shattering the previous record of 32 feet, which was set in 1926. One official said the river rose 12-14 feet in just 30 minutes and grew 223 cubic feet per second, the fastest rate ever recorded.

Meanwhile, in India another extreme weather event is wreaking even more havoc. But it isn't a flood. It's a heat wave.

So far, more than 1,400 people have been killed in less than one week, mostly due to dehydration and heat stroke. The majority of the deaths came from "people who don't have access to air conditioning," namely construction workers, the poor/homeless and the elderly.

In Delhi it reached 113 degrees. In other areas, temperatures hit 122 degrees, just 1 degree shy of the all-time record. It's gotten so bad that people are being ordered to stay in their homes and not go outside. It's so hot that roads are literally melting.

While the historic flooding in Texas and the deadly heat wave in India are completely different forms of extreme weather, they are both products of the same root cause: climate change.


REDEFINING CLIMATE CHANGE

For years, climate change was framed through the lens of polar bears and rising sea levels. But now, thanks to an explosion of mega-storms, floods, droughts and blizzards, we are realizing that melting ice caps are only one part of the overall climate crisis.

The other part is extreme weather.

Hurricane Sandy was the wake up call, a seminal moment when humanity's eyes were opened to the undeniable fact that we had entered a new climate reality, one where old, predictable weather patterns were replaced by bigger, stronger, more violent weather events than ever before.

Since Sandy, it's only gotten worse. We've had record snowfall in the Northeast and an unprecedented drought in California. Now we have a 500-year flood in Texas and a sweltering heat wave in India.

The rise in extreme weather coincides with the fact that the planet continues to warm and carbon emissions continue to rise. (It may have gone largely under the radar, but the Earth reached a "global milestone" in March when CO2 emissions reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history).

As a result, any conversation about combating extreme weather must start with combating climate change. The two are intertwined.


SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS

Solars panels, wind turbines and electric cars are a step in the right direction but they're not enough. If we want to prevent environmental doomsday, we must keep the remaining carbon in the ground and completely reinvent the way we live our lives.

This means no more drilling. No more pipelines. No more flying on planes (air travel leaves a huge carbon footprint). No more steaks and cheeseburgers (the meat industry is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses).

If the recent events in Texas and India teach us anything, it's that climate change can no longer be denied or ignored. It can't be wished away. It's happening right now, before our eyes.

We can either sit back and do nothing, accepting the fact that rising seas and extreme weather are the new normal, or we can make serious, bold changes to limit our emissions, cool the planet and prevent climate judgment day.

Years ago, conventional wisdom was that climate change and global warming are a slow moving disaster that won't affect us during our lifetimes, but could affect our grandchildren or great-grandchildren. But that's not the case anymore. It's here now. It's affecting us as we speak.

It's now or never on climate.

Osama Bin Laden, Seymour Hersh And The Truth About The Abbottabad Raid

I'll never forget the day Osama Bin Laden was killed.

It was May 1, 2011. Coincidentally, it was also my 24th birthday.

I remember sitting on the train, heading back to my Allston apartment after a long night of working in a restaurant by Fenway Park. I was listening to my iPod, as I always did, when rumors began to swirl online that President Obama was set to make a major announcement to the nation.

I got off at my customary stop- Harvard Ave- and raced back to my apartment, not sure what to expect.

Another war? A terrorist attack? A plane crash? An airborne toxic event? Aliens?

My friends, roommates and I gathered around the television, a big Sony flat screen that was usually reserved for sports and movies. Then, right on cue, Barack Obama made the long walk toward the camera and said "The United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden."

For a few seconds, the room was silent. Everyone was shocked, their jaws hanging from their faces, their eyes staring blankly at the television screen as if to say, is this really happening?

A moment or so later, we all erupted in applause. But it wasn't just us. The entire city exploded at the exact same time, as if the Red Sox had just won the World Series. Soon, the streets of Boston were flooded with people holding American flags and climbing light posts. Everyone was hugging each other. People were singing "God Bless America" at the top of their lungs.

We got him! It's finally over! 

I had never experienced such a powerful, collective sense of patriotism in my life. It wasn't like singing the national anthem in unison at a crowded sporting event. Or watching fireworks amidst a sea of red, white and blue American flags on the 4th of July.

It was different in a way I can't fully describe. I'd like to think it felt something like V-Day in Times Square, 1945, when the US had just defeated Japan in WWII.

I felt more American in that moment than I ever had in my entire life.


WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Some four years later, the legend of the Abbottabad raid and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has become almost a mythical tale.

Popularized by the movie Zero Dark Thirty, the story goes something like this...

After years and years of tireless intelligence gathering (combined with information secured by torture), the CIA was able to track down Bin Laden's courier, who led them to his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

However, despite the information from the courier, it still wasn't 100% certain that it really was Bin Laden. And if it was him, doubts existed that he would actually be there. Nevertheless, President Obama made the gutsy call to go through with the mission.

After flying in on a set of helicopters, SEAL Team 6 evaded detection from the Pakistani military, broke into Bin Laden's Abbottabad complex, and, after an exchange of gunfire, shot and killed the most wanted man on the planet. Bin Laden's body was then flown to the USS Carl Vinson and buried at sea.

But according to a recent bombshell report by Seymour Hersh, much of the story is a lie.

According to Hersh, Bin Laden wasn't hiding out in the Abbottabad complex, he was being held prisoner there by the ISI, the Pakistani version of the CIA, and had been for years, possibly since 2006. Bin Laden was under house arrest, unable to leave the premises. He was being monitored and surveilled 24/7.

And it wasn't a courier who led the US to Bin Laden, instead it was a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer. According to Hersh, he walked into the US Embassy in Islamabad in 2010 and told the US where Bin Laden was.

"He betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US... The informant and his family were smuggled out of Pakistan and relocated in the Washington area. He is now a consultant to the CIA."

So the "gutsy" decision by Obama wasn't really gutsy at all. Bin Laden was a sitting duck. He was handed to the US on a silver platter. It wasn't a result of years of intensive work, it was a stroke of luck. If not for the informant, who knows if Bin Laden isn't still alive today, safely hidden in that same Abbottabad complex.

Also, according to Hersh, there was no firefight. Bin Laden didn't have a suicide vest. He didn't even have an AK-47, as previously reported. He was an "old, sick man, who was going to be murdered."

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Since Hersh's report surfaced, a major debate has erupted over what really happened in the Abbottabad raid.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods." Others have attacked Hersh's character, calling his journalistic integrity into question.

However, despite the blowback, Hersh is sticking to his story.

In the end, we are left with the ultimate postmodern conundrum. There is no black and white, only gray. We must come to our own conclusions about the Abbottabad raid.

If you ask me, I tend to believe Hersh over the Obama Administration.

Hersh has won a Pulitzer. He has been a well-known, well-respected investigative reporter for 50 years. He exposed the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. He sounded the alarm on abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2004.

Why would he publish a false or fake story, knowing that if it was proven wrong his entire career would be diminished? No sane person would take such a gigantic risk unless they were supremely confident in the story they were reporting.

As for the government, they have a vested interest in making sure the narrative doesn't change.

The killing of Bin Laden is one of the signature achievements of Obama's presidency. To admit that the CIA had little to do with finding Bin Laden diminishes the story. So does the fact that there was no firefight and Bin Laden was a sitting duck, gifted to the US by a stroke of luck thanks to a Pakistani informant. Also, it doesn't help Obama's legacy if it turns out his decision to carry out the mission was a relatively safe, no-brainer, not a gutsy call worthy of being mythologized.

In the end, the killing of Bin Laden will live on forever. It was a seminal moment in American history. But was the story that the government fed to us real? Or was it a dramatic embellishment used to elevate President Obama's status and help him get re-elected?

At this point, my money is on the latter.

Ready For Bernie

Conventional wisdom says Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for 2016.

She has a resume that is unrivaled, with decades of experience as a lawyer, first-lady, senator and secretary of state. Of course she has her haters, but Hillary is a true political rock star, arguably the most famous woman on planet Earth.

In the polls, she is light years ahead of just about every Democrat in the field. A recent Real Clear Politics poll had Hillary at 62.2%- more than 49 points ahead of her closest challenger, Elizabeth Warren (12.7%).

Anytime word surfaces that a Democrat might challenge Hillary, they are more or less laughed at. You can't beat Hillary. Stop wasting your time. Why are you even trying?

I admire Hillary. She is smart, qualified and a great leader. If she wins the Democratic nomination for president I will gladly vote for her over whomever her Republican opponent might be.

But the presidency is not a birthright. It must be fought for. It must be won by someone who proves to the country that they are the best person for the job. It is not a crown reserved for the next in line just because it's their turn.

The challenges we face today are daunting. Income inequality is out of control. The middle class is being wiped off the map. Climate change is threatening our very existence.

We must elect a leader in 2016 fit for the times, a FDR for the 21st century who will stand up to the millionaires and billionaires who've hijacked our democracy, protect the most vulnerable and save us from environmental doomsday.

That leader isn't Hillary Clinton.

It's Bernie Sanders.


SEARCHING FOR AUTHENTICITY

Watching Hillary on the trail, I must admit that I have been impressed. She has taken on a more populist tone and focused much of her attention on helping the middle class, ending mass incarceration and fighting for marriage equality.

All of these positions are commendable. But one must wonder, is this truly what Hillary believes? Is it really her? Or is she capitalizing on a growing populist movement, doing her best Elizabeth Warren impression?

This is the problem with Hillary. Despite all of her great qualities, she never seems authentic. She comes off as scripted, eternally swayed by the political winds, tweaking her tone and words based upon the crowd she's speaking to and what's popular at the time.

In many ways, Bernie is the anti-Hillary.

Unlike Hillary, you always know where Bernie stands. He is not secretive or wishy-washy. He is consistent in his views and beliefs. He does not flip flop, even when it's politically advantageous.

As Matt Taibbi wrote recently in Rolling Stone, "[Bernie] is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it."

It's great that Hillary has adopted a populist message recently, but Bernie has been preaching it for decades. He's was decrying income inequality before it was trendy. He was lobbying for a single-payer health care system back when it was taboo. He's been railing against big banks and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a select few since the 1980s when he was mayor of Burlington.

In a similar vein, I'm glad Hillary is fighting hard for marriage equality, but it's important to remember that she used to be against it and only "evolved" her views recently. Not Bernie. He voted against DOMA and has always been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights and marriage equality.

Recently, Bernie told the New York Times, "I'm not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I was there!" 

And, oh yeah, Hillary voted for the disastrous Iraq War. Bernie voted against it. 

TAKING ON THE BIG ISSUES

Two weeks ago, at a campaign round table in Iowa, Hillary unveiled the four goals of her campaign.

1. build the economy of tomorrow

2. strengthen families and communities

3. fix political dysfunction by getting money out of politics

4. protect the US from threats like terrorism

All four goals are commendable. Unfortunately, she didn't leave any room for fighting climate change.

In fact, Hillary rarely, if ever, discusses climate change or global warming. She won't even take a position on Keystone XL. It's an issue of monumental importance yet she gives it almost no attention.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is a long-time champion of the environment and a staunch opponent of Keystone XL. He is one the few politicians who has consistently shined a light on climate change and the threat is poses not only for America but for mankind.

In addition, he's crusaded against the Koch Brothers for profiting off the destruction of our planet. He's also gone after climate deniers like Senator Jim Inhofe, calling his know nothing stance on climate change "dead wrong." 

Standing on the precipice of climate doomsday, do we really want to elect a leader who rarely ever broaches the subject of climate change? Are we really going to put our faith in someone who largely ignores the greatest threat to humanity? And offers no solutions to fix it?

Absolutely not.

Instead, we must elect a leader who understands the severity of the climate crisis we face, a leader who will take serious, bold action to prevent environmental doomsday. As Bill McKibben wrote recently, that leader is Bernie Sanders.

But it's not just Bernie's environmental stance that puts him ahead of Hillary. It's his economic agenda as well.

At a time of unprecedented income inequality, do we really expect Hillary Clinton- a longtime Wall Street supporter and sympathizer- to take on the big banks and push for real, meaningful reform?

After all, as Ezra Klein recently pointed out, Hillary's biggest donors are all banks, while Bernie's biggest donors are all unions. Is Hillary going to break up the big banks after accepting millions of dollars from them? No way.


BERNIE 2016

The middle class is dying. The planet is in peril. We need a leader fit for the times. A leader with a backbone of steel who is consistent, authentic and always says what they believe, even when it's not popular or politically advantageous.

In any other election, Hillary Clinton would be a fine candidate.

But today's challenges are too big, too daunting and too severe to simply hand the presidential crown to the next in line.

We can't afford to elect a pro-Wall Street moderate who is swayed by the political winds and turns the other way in the face of climate doomsday.

We need a bold, progressive thinker with a proven track record; a leader with real integrity who never wavers in their defense of the most vulnerable and has the courage to take on the Koch Brothers, break up the big banks and fight climate change head-on.

We need Bernie Sanders.

If Netanyahu Wins, The Peace Process Loses

Imagine for a moment that you have been living under a rock the past few years. You wake from your slumber to see a foreign leader bashing your president on the floor of congress. This charismatic leader warns of an impending disaster and says your president is responsible. He asks you, as well as your elected leaders, to join him in sabotaging your president's deal.

His rhetoric is lofty. It sounds incredibly convincing. Every ten seconds the crowd erupts with applause. But soon you realize that, despite his powerful words, this foreign leader offers no plan of his own to avert the upcoming "disaster."

Then you realize that this leader is speaking to congress just two weeks ahead of his re-election bid. His speech isn't designed to solve the "disaster" he warns against. It's only intended to win him a few more votes by elevating his reputation as a distinguished "statesman" on the world stage.

Now imagine that the country the foreign leader comes from has been your closest, most cherished ally for decades. And oh, by the way, the foreign leader who is speaking to your congress secretly arranged the visit without the knowledge or approval of your president.

This is exactly what happened on Tuesday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress about the need to reject President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

MISSING THE FOREST AMONGST THE TREES

After watching Netanyahu's speech, one would assume that the biggest, most pivotal issue facing Israel is a nuclear Iran.

Problem is, it isn't.

Israel knows that America will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Even if a "bad deal" includes the 10-year sunset clause, which Netanyahu rails against, it's not like America will sit back and allow Iran to build a bomb in 2025. We will go to war with Iran and blow up their facilities if we get even the slightest inkling that they are close to going nuclear.

In the mean time, Obama's deal would make Israel more safe in the short term because it forces Iran to bring their nuclear program out of the shadows and be closely monitored and kept in check for the years to come.

As a result, the biggest issue facing Israel isn't a nuclear Iran, as much as Netanyahu would love for you to believe. Instead, it's an issue that the Israeli Prime Minister devotes almost zero attention to: making peace with the Palestinians.

Simply put, if Netanyahu wins re-election on March 17th, the peace process loses.

A staunch opponent of a two-state solution, Netanyahu has no interest in reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinians. He will continue to build settlements on occupied land, inflaming tensions and stoking hatreds. The people of Gaza will continue to live in squalor, their homes destroyed, their movements restricted and their economic prospects limited.

If Netanyahu wins, the next half-decade will be just like the last. Gaza Wars will become annual events, a new one launched every summer. 

Meanwhile, Israel will move closer to becoming an apartheid state. 

But unfortunately, none of this even gets mentioned; not on the nightly news and especially not in a televised speech to congress.

ROOTING AGAINST BIBI

Netanyahu's decision to address congress was a partisan move that adds nothing constructive to the Iran conversation. It only serves to dishonor the historic, bipartisan partnership between the United States and Israel.

But that's not the only reason why it's so destructive. 

It's so destructive because it consumes all the oxygen in the room. It serves as a shiny object that everyone can stare at, which excuses them from addressing the elephant in the room: making peace with the Palestinians. 

I must admit, on a purely visceral level, I loved Netanyahu's speech. It made me proud to be half-Jewish. It made me proud that the Jewish people have their own country and can now defend themselves against people who vow to wipe them off the map.

But Bibi's speech does not come in a vacuum. It does not change the fact that it was a deeply cynical and destructive partisan move.

As an American, I won't be voting in the Israeli election. But I'll be rooting against Bibi. 

Not because his speech disrespected my president or dishonored the historic partnership between the US and Israel- but because if Bibi wins, the peace process loses.