Sorry, Fear Mongers. ISIS And Ebola Aren't Existential Threats To America... But Climate Change Is

When listening to cable news hosts and Republican congressional candidates on the eve of the 2014 Midterm Elections, one would think that America is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Between ISIS and Ebola, the freak-out meter is at record highs not seen since the days of 9/11.

On CNN and Fox News, they flash "BREAKING NEWS" headlines all day even when nothing new is going on. They stalk Ebola victims like Hollywood paparazzi. They speak incessantly about ISIS's every move, making them out to be the most unstoppable, terrifying fighting force in the history or warfare.

Republican congressional candidates are playing up the same anxieties as well.

Scott Brown, the poster boy for Fear and Hysteria, has been running an ad non-stop in New Hampshire in which he states, unequivocally, "Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country." He goes on to claim that anyone with Ebola can "walk across" our "porous border" and says Americans are not safe because Obama and Jeanne Shaheen, his opponent, are clueless about national security.

But it's not just Brown. Fellow Republican Senate hopefuls like Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton and Cory Gardner have said similarly hysterical things about ISIS and Ebola.

Neither the media nor Republicans running for office are approaching ISIS and Ebola with the calm, level-head is demands. Instead they are fanning the flames of terror and unrest, offering no solutions of their own, whipping the nation up into a frenzy just to improve their ratings and scare up some votes.

Worst of all, while they are shamelessly devoting all of the available oxygen in the room to ISIS and Ebola, they are burying any discussion about a real existential threat that goes largely unmentioned in the media and in politics: Climate Change.

PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE

As scary as ISIS and Ebola may seem, they do not threaten to wipe out our existence. The media and Republican candidates like Scott Brown are wrong to suggest that they do.

While it's true that ISIS and Ebola are serious challenges and America has been slow to respond to both, it doesn't change the fact that we are now 100% all-in on both fronts.

America is at war with ISIS and we have been since September. We are launching dozens of strikes in both Iraq and Syria every single day. We have a coalition of allies at our side helping us in the fight, with more joining each day.

The fight against ISIS has its own official name, Operation Inherent Resolve. And the well-respected John Allen is the special commander overseeing the operation.

Similarly, Ebola is being given the full-court press as well. After a rocky start, Obama has worked to fix and strengthen the protocols and airport screenings for possible patients.

He has also appointed an Ebola Czar, Ron Klain, a testament to how important the issue is and how serious it's being taken by the administration.

In addition, some generous philanthropists like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Miscrosoft CEO Paul Allen have donated $25 million and $100 million to the Ebola fight, respectively, which is a huge help to the overall effort, not only in America but in Africa as well.

In both cases, ISIS and Ebola are being met head on by real, multifaceted action.

However, the same can't be said for a much more serious threat: Climate Change.

NO TIME TO WASTE

In the fight against Climate Change, there are small victories to report.

In September, over 300,000 people marched in New York City in the largest ever Climate Change demonstration. Solar panels are cropping up on roofs all over America and solar energy is expected to be as cheap as fossil fuel energy by 2016.

President Obama has also proposed EPA rules to cut carbon emissions, becoming the first president ever to do so.

Unfortunately, the climate crisis is so dire that incremental measures are not enough. Whether or not Americans are willing to admit it, we are faced with Climate Armageddon. We must drastically cut our carbon emissions- and fast.

Recently there have been some frightening reminders of how bad the situation is getting, yet the news has gone under the radar with everyone fixating on ISIS and Ebola.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that 2014 is on track to be the hottest year on record. A study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that melting polar and glacial ice have accelerated sea level rise to the highest rate in at least 6,000 years.

Meanwhile, the amount of carbon in the air is rising at a much faster than we previously expected, with greenhouse gasses in 2013 reaching historic highs.

If that news isn't enough to worry you, consider this: Between 2030-2050 an additional 250,000 people are expected to die each year as a result of Climate Change.

In the media and in Midterm Election debates, all of the attention is centered on ISIS and Ebola. There is barely any mention of Climate Change at all.

On the off chance that Climate Change does get mentioned in a debate, it's usually just a generic question like "Do you believe in it?" The Democrat says yes, the Republican says no. Both answers are given the same respect even though one is factually wrong. There is no follow-up question about how we should address it. Just a shrug of the shoulders. Agree to disagree. Move on.


THE TIME IS NOW

In America, the panic over ISIS and Ebola has reached a fever pitch. We are told all day, everyday by the media and Republican politicians that our entire way of life is being threatened and Doomsday is upon us.

But why are they selling us this bill of goods?

It's simple. Fear sells. Nonstop bad news is good for TV ratings. It's good for Republican politicians seeking office because the electorate tends to vote Republican when they feel scared.

On the surface, it makes sense. When something bad is happening it's easy to stay glued to the "news." And in a state of high anxiety and unease, the heavy-handed Conservative position seems much more comforting than the calm, science-based approach championed by Liberals.

But that doesn't make it right.

No one is arguing that ISIS and Ebola aren't serious challenges to America. They are. And it's true that if we don't stay on top of both issues they could spread and become even bigger problems in the future.

But let's be honest: neither is an existential threat to our country. ISIS is in the Middle East. Ebola is in West Africa. Neither are going to cause the collapse of our nation.

And on top of that, we are making a real, concerted effort to defeat both, with President Obama devoting all of his attention and resources to both fights. Neither issue is being neglected. Both are being met head on.

In the end, fear mongering is a tactic used by those who can't win on the issues and don't have any answers of their own, so they must manipulate the emotions of others to achieve their ends. It may be good for TV ratings and help scare up a few votes, but it does nothing of substance to improve the situation.

In times of high anxiety, it's important to remember what FDR said in his 1933 Inaugural Address.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

If only we could approach Climate Change with the same honest, bold stoicism that FDR applied to the Great Depression.

Bridging The Divide- Bill Maher, Ben Affleck And The Liberal Conundrum That Is Islam

Last week on HBO's Real Time, Bill Maher and Ben Affleck got into a heated debate on Islam that instantly went viral.

Maher, the outspoken left-wing comedian and unabashed atheist, took the controversial stance that Islam itself is a religion of "mafia-style" violence that "has too much in common with ISIS" and demands criticism for its anti-liberal views toward women, gays and "non-believers." 

Affleck, the Boston-bred movie star and fellow liberal, loudly denounced Maher as "gross" and "racist" for stereotyping a religion of 1.5 billion people.

In the week since, op-ed columnists, television hosts and everyone in-between have taken out their proverbial knives and verbally crucified both Maher and Affleck, depending on which side of the argument they support.

Reza Aslan, a well-known Muslim scholar, wrote in The New York Times that Maher "lacks sophistication" and his use of blanket anti-Islam statements amount to nothing more than racist bigotry, a sentiment also shared by Max Fisher of Vox.com. 

In turn, many others across the ideological spectrum have rushed to Maher's defense. In a bizarre case of strange bedfellows, Fox News host Bill O' Reilly not only agreed with Maher's criticism of Islam but went on to say that ISIS would behead Affleck "in a second" if they had the chance. 

In addition, while taking issue with Maher's oversimplification of Islam, CNN contributor and Washington Post writer Fareed Zakaria agreed that "Islam has a problem today" and within the religion exists a "cancer of extremism."

But while both sides of the argument view the debate in largely black and white terms of one side being wrong and the other right, very few have taken a nuanced approach that journeys into the uninhabited gray area.

THE LIBERAL CONUNDRUM

Two of the most fundamental, guiding principles of Liberalism are tolerance and equality. 

From a very young age, liberals are taught to respect others no matter their religion, skin color, class, race or sexual orientation. We are also raised to believe that everyone is equal and that we must walk a mile in someone else's shoes before passing judgment. 

In addition, we are taught to defend those who are less fortunate and stand up to bigotry, racism, sexism or any other type of "ism" which goes against the well-founded tenets of Liberalism. 

While these principles sound like an easy enough blueprint to follow, they become muddied when contemplating certain issues in today's complex, modern world. 

One of those issues is Islam. 

On the one hand, liberals respect and embrace the Muslim religion because we pride ourselves on being tolerant of others. We may not fully understand the complex history and traditions of Islam, but we are careful not to criticize or stereotype the religion as a whole. 

However, on the other side of the coin, liberals are incredibly uncomfortable with many anti-democratic, anti-liberal aspects of Islam. We can't stand seeing women forced to wear burkas from head to toe, devoid of the freedom Western women enjoy. We cringe at the thought of Muslim women being married off at such a young age and then forced to stay in the house, unable to leave without being accompanied by a man, unable to get an education, hold a job or drive a car. 

We find certain practices like the stoning of women for adultery completely beyond the pale. We condemn the outward repression of gays in the Muslim world. We find it absolutely abhorrent that a majority of Muslims agree that those who leave the religion deserve to die. We shake our heads at the fact that in 2007 a Swedish artist received death threats for drawing an unflattering cartoon of Muhammad.

However, many liberals choose not to project these criticisms outwardly because we are fearful of being branded racist or Islamophobic.

As a result, many liberals (myself included) find themselves at a crossroads when grappling with how to approach Islam.

EMBRACING THE GRAY AREA

Maher and Affleck's debate was so interesting and controversial because it highlighted the liberal divide on Islam, an ideological splintering rarely discussed in public, let alone on a major cable television station.

While the debate has succeeded in breaking through to the mainstream and fostering a larger conversation on Islam, it has also been somewhat destructive because many pundits and columnists have vilified one side or the other without really listening to the conflicting argument.

Personally, I agree and disagree with elements of both sides. 

Affleck is 100% right that it is wrong to stereotype a religion of 1.5 billion people as ISIS-sympathizing extremists. That type of thinking will only inflame tensions and hatreds between the East and the West and does nothing to reconcile the differences of opinion.

However, Maher is also right that there are many tenets of Islam that go against liberal ideals and deserve criticism and scorn, most notably the anti-democratic treatment of and intolerance toward women, gays and non-believers within the Muslim world.

On the one hand, liberals are right to champion Affleck's condemnation of Maher's dangerous oversimplification of Islam. However, we must also not let our desire to be tolerant and politically correct silence us from speaking out against certain aspects of Islam that go against the most fundamental principles of Liberalism.

Yes, it is Islamophobic to say that Islam is a religion of violence and extremism, because it is not. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth and the vast majority are peaceful and respectful. Only a small minority are terrorists and jihadists. ISIS and Al-Qaeda do not speak for all of Islam, just as the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for all of Christianity.

However, liberals must be reminded that it is not Islamophobic to condemn specific parts of Islam that discriminate against women, gays and non-believers.

In the end, championing one side of the argument while completely dismissing the other is not constructive. It only serves to silence the furthering of a conversation that will lead us to progress between Muslims and non-Muslims, something we desperately need in today's world.

There is a way to stay true to liberal ideals while also remaining respectful to Islam.

And although the formula can't be derived on a 60-minute TV show, at least it's succeeded in starting the conversation.

Is Assad Playing Chess While The Rest Of The World Plays Checkers?

Before the conflict in Syria became a full-blown civil war, Bashar al-Assad was using the specter of terrorism to justify the brutal repression of his people.

In the early days, the argument was laughable. After all, the initial protests in January of 2011 were led by regular citizens, not terrorists. The demonstrators spanned all ages and classes. They were a peaceful extension of the Arab Spring, a regional revolution calling on Mid-East dictators to relinquish their decades-long, iron-fisted rule in favor of political reforms and the reinstatement of civil rights. 

However, in order to keep his legitimacy, Assad couldn't just suppress his own people for no reason. He needed a sustainable, long-term excuse to justify his crackdown.

As a result, terrorism became a convenient scapegoat.

By claiming he was "fighting terrorists," Assad was able to change the perception of the Syrian Civil War. Suddenly, it was no longer a one-sided story of a bloodthirsty tyrant crushing his own people. Now Assad could claim to be a president courageously defending his country against terrorists hell-bent on destroying it.

The elephant in the room, of course, was that Assad's "terrorist" claim was complete fiction, at least in the beginning. It willfully ignored the fact that the vast majority of people he was killing at the start of the conflict were everyday Syrians peacefully petitioning their government for reform. 

Even those who went on to join the Free Syrian Army and fight directly against Assad weren't terrorists. They were, as Obama famously put it, "farmers and dentists who have never fought before."

THE RISE OF ISIS

To date, more than 200,000 people have been killed in the Syrian Civil War. After 3+ years of bloodshed, Assad continues to cling to power. But the chessboard has shifted dramatically since 2011.

The power vacuum created by years of chaos has allowed extremists a safe haven from which to grow and strengthen. No one has benefited more from this unrest than ISIS. Out of the chaos they've been able to carve a Caliphate, the western portion of which consumes almost all of northern and eastern Syria. 

The Syrian city of Raqqa has become ISIS's capital. Its neighboring hills were likely the location of the James Foley beheading.  

This is where the US-led bombing raid is currently conducting many of its strikes. Unfortunately, they're playing directly into Assad's hands.

First off, as a result of Western and Arab countries targeting ISIS in Syria, Assad gains international legitimacy by default. Suddenly, he becomes the lesser of two evils in the eyes of the world. Sure, he may kill his own people by the tens of thousands- but at least he doesn't behead them on the internet. 

Also, thanks to ISIS, Assad's once-laughable claim to be "fighting terrorists" now seems, at least on the surface, somewhat believable. After all, if ISIS wasn't such a dangerous threat to the world an international coalition wouldn't be bombing them right now.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED 

It's hard to think of Assad as anything else but a ruthless tyrant who gasses his own people and drops barrel bombs on their heads. But after seeing the way events have unfolded in his favor the past few years, we must now ask ourselves: if he just getting lucky? or is he a brilliant strategist playing the US and the world like a fiddle?

After all, despite neighboring dictators being toppled all around him, Assad has somehow managed to survive. He has been betting and winning for some time now. 

He bet against Obama enforcing his chemical weapons "red line"-- and he won.

He bet on ISIS, providing them a safe haven from which to incubate and grow into a jhadist Frankenstein-- and they did.

Then, just when ISIS became so out-of-control they were bursting at the seams, Assad bet on the US and its allies to intervene at the 11th hour to "degrade and destroy" them-- and now they are.

All the while, Assad gets to sit back in his Damascus palace and watch gleefully as the US-led coalition acts as his personal air force, strengthening his grip on power by blowing his most dangerous opponent into smithereens for free.

For a while it seemed like Assad was just getting lucky, making it up as he went along. 

But now it's starting to feel more and more like he's playing chess while the rest of the world plays checkers.

When It Comes To Iraq, Barack Obama Has Been President Long Enough To See Himself Become The Villain

In 2007, a largely unknown, first-term Senator from Illinois rose to national prominence by having the courage to go against the status quo.

At the time, the Iraq War was raging. George W. Bush had just ordered an additional "surge" of 20,000 troops, bringing the total number of US combat forces in Iraq to more than 160,000.

Day after day, coffins draped in American flags were returning home, while more and more soldiers were losing their limbs from IED attacks. Sadly, many of those lucky enough to return home alive would be irrevocably damaged by PTSD.

Sure, we had toppled Saddam Hussein, but in doing so we'd thrown Iraq into an uncontrollable abyss of foreign occupation and sectarian violence. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden was still at large. It was a dark time in American history.

All of that changed when Barack Obama, then a vibrant, youthful-looking 47-year-old devoid of gray hair, courageously denounced the Iraq War, a directionless mess that was approaching its fifth year of bloodshed.

Obama gave us hope and promised change at a time when we desperately needed both. He vowed to rid America of costly, foreign entanglements that drained us of blood and treasure. He said he would reverse the disastrous policies of Bush and remove us from a perpetual war footing.

But now, some seven years later, Obama is bringing us back into Iraq, this time to fight a new war against a new enemy called ISIS.

FLASH FORWARD

When Obama entered the White House in January of 2009, he had a plethora of catastrophic issues to deal with, the biggest of which was an economy in free fall. 

The second most pressing issue was getting us out of Iraq.

While it may have taken Obama longer than many of us would have liked, he followed through with his campaign promise. By the end of 2011 the last remaining troops left Iraq. 

But with the rise of ISIS, Obama's vision for the Middle East has been turned on its head. Suddenly, out of sight is no longer out of mind. We may have left, but the damage caused by a decade of war and occupation has not.

Obama's foreign policy strategy of "Don't Do Stupid Stuff" is no longer sufficient. The stupid stuff we've already done is coming back to haunt us. It cannot be ignored. It must be addressed head on. 

As a result, Obama should embrace a new strategy of "Do Smart Stuff."

By that new standard, the American people must ask themselves- Is it smart for us to get into another war in Iraq, something we've been doing unsuccessfully for the past 20+ years? 

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

OBAMA BECOMES THE VILLAIN

Obama won the White House in 2008 by being the Anti-Bush candidate. He denounced the Iraq War and vowed to bring our troops home. He railed against the Patriot Act and promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

But here he is in 2014, nearly six years later, becoming the fourth straight President to launch a US military operation in Iraq. Just like that, we are back in the Middle East. We are back picking sides in a religious civil war, as if we've learned nothing from the past 20 years.

If history were written like a comic book, Obama would be remembered as a Harvey Dent-like President; someone with limitless potential and promise, someone we placed all of our hopes and dreams in, someone who we counted on to deliver real, substantial change. But in the end, just like Harvey Dent, Obama was corrupted by history and establishment politics, transformed right before our eyes from an outsider committed to changing the status-quo to an insider fighting to keep it.

As the famous Dark Knight quote goes, "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

When it comes to Iraq, Obama was a hero in 2007 and 2008.

In 2014, he's officially been President long enough to see himself become the villain.

ISIS, Assad And The Sopranos- How A Mafia-Style Mentality Could Serve Obama Well In Syria

"When you're bleeding a guy you don't squeeze him dry right away. Contrarily, you let him do his bidding, suavely. So you can bleed him next week and the week after."  
-Christopher Moltisanti                                          

                                                                                         
When thinking about ISIS, Assad and what the US should do in Syria, I keep coming back to this epic quote from The Sopranos. It's helpful because it shows the mindset of a thug: how a true mafia man- a member of the organized crime family- handles their affairs and treats their adversaries.

In this particular quote, Christopher is explaining to the younger guys who haven't been made yet how to handle an unruly "client." Chrissy warns them not to go overboard with their initial punishment, instead telling them to act strategically with tomorrow in mind.

Translation: Don't just kill the guy up front: manipulate the situation, bleed him slowly so he survives long enough to pay off in the long run. Let him do his bidding.

This is how the US, and more specifically, Barack Obama, should approach Syria.

After all, mass-murdering dictators and barbaric jihadists play by a different set of rules. They don't respect diplomacy or international law. As a result, we must treat the thugs of ISIS and Assad the way Christopher and the family handles organized crime. We must think strategically. We must not squeeze them dry right away. We must bleed them slowly with tomorrow in mind.


WHY WE CAN'T WORK WITH ASSAD

Following the gruesome, stomach-churning execution of James Foley, the drumbeat to war against ISIS is growing louder. Americans want revenge. They want justice. They want to punish ISIS for the unthinkable act of terror they've committed against us by beheading one of our own for all the world to see.

But it isn't just the American people who want a pound of flesh from ISIS. Obama himself is considering airstrikes in Syria to take them out where they are strongest. He has already approved surveillance flights to map out ISIS positions and potential targets, a precursor to a bombing campaign.

Unfortunately, this is a big mistake.

While it's true that in order to defeat ISIS we must hit them in Syria, their stronghold, doing so will only create more problems.

First off, by striking ISIS in Syria the US would be indirectly aligning with Assad. This is exactly what Assad wants. We would be doing him a favor by rushing to his defense and acting as his personal air force. We would effectively be saving the presidency of a man whom the US has repeatedly said "must go."

In addition, by aligning with Assad- a maniacal tyrant who has killed well over 100,000 Muslims- we would further alienate moderate Muslims all across the Middle East. This will only cause more anti-American sentiment and support for ISIS, as they would become the only perceived defender against Assad and American aggression.

Secondly, it would represent a massive flip-flop and geo-political embarrassment for the US. After all, almost exactly a year ago Obama was about to bomb Assad for crossing his chemical weapons "red line." Now we're going to work with him?

On a broader scale, what message would it send to the rest of the world if the US worked hand in glove with a butcher like Assad? A man who gasses and barrel-bombs his own people? We would lose whatever amount of international legitimacy we have left.


ACT LIKE A SOPRANO

If working with Assad to strike ISIS in Syria is off the table, what could the US do instead?

Simple: act like a Soprano.

Don't squeeze ISIS dry right away by striking them in Syria. Instead, continue to slowly bleed them in Iraq. Continue to arm and aid the Kurds and work the Iraqi military to beat ISIS back. We've already seen how this strategy can be successful. Just look at the joint-coalition effort to re-take the Mosul Dam.

Because military action can only achieve so much, we must also continue to pressure and guide the new government in Baghdad, making sure they are being inclusive so that Sunni, Shia and Kurdish members are all represented equally at the table. This is key to forming a long-lasting, strong Iraq- one with stability and security that can act as a buffer in the region against ISIS and future jihadists groups.

By hitting ISIS in Iraq we will eventually force them to retreat into Syria. This is a win for the US as it places them directly on Assad's doorstep. Now they are even more of a problem for Assad than they were before. He can no longer pit them in a proxy-war against the Free Syrian Army or other jihadist groups like Jabhat Al Nusrah. Instead, he will now be forced to confront them head on.

This would be great news for the US because by forcing ISIS and Assad into a prolonged battle, both sides will be bled slowly, the casualty numbers driven into infinite oblivion.

We were provided a glimpse of what a full-blown ISIS versus Assad war would look like just this past week at Tabqa Airbase. Thousands of ISIS fighters managed to storm Tabqa and secure it from Assad forces. While it was a major victory for ISIS and an embarrassing defeat for Assad, it was costly for both sides.

In the Tabqa battle, some 346 ISIS fighters were killed along with roughly 200 regime soldiers. Hundreds of others were wounded on both sides. Another 200 regime soldiers were taken prisoner by ISIS and later executed in the desert.

(Also, keep in mind that ISIS has seized heavy weaponry from Tabqa and now likely possesses MANPADs, or shoulder-mounted rocket launchers capable of taking down low-flying aircraft. Imagine if they were able to shoot down a US jet conducting airstrikes in Syria or take our military personnel hostage.)

While forcing ISIS and Assad to kill each other is a sadistic strategy, it is a much better option than conducting airstrikes in Syria, putting boots on the ground or working with Assad.


THINK LONG TERM

Obama can't act like a diplomat in Syria. The rules of diplomacy, international law and basic respect do not apply to barbaric jihadists and mass-murdering dictators. To defeat thugs like ISIS and Assad, Obama must take a page out of the Sopranos' playbook and act like a mob boss.

Obama should heed Christopher's advice: don't squeeze ISIS dry right away with airstrikes in Syria. Don't be consumed by the short-term need for immediate justice for James Foley's death. That will come in time.

Instead think strategically. Think about tomorrow and the next day- the long term. Continue to hit them in Iraq and force them to flee to Syria where they will have to take on Assad. Send them into a prolonged war. Let them do their bidding.

In the meantime, step up US support for the Free Syrian Army so that they are strong enough to defeat whomever emerges victorious from the heavyweight bout between ISIS and Assad.

By following this plan, Obama will save us from the indignity of having to work with Assad and also save us from the unintended consequences of having to conduct airstrikes in Syria or put boots on the ground.

The strategy is laid out for Obama.

All he has to do is abandon the lofty rhetoric and act like a Soprano.

Hands Up, Don't Shoot- How Ferguson Became The Canary In The Coal Mine For Police Militarization In America

Between Israel's bloody war with Hamas, the brutal crusade by ISIS to reshape the Middle East and Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine, it's easy to focus our collective attention on the global chaos happening around us, while at the same time overlook what's taking place right here in America. 

Not anymore. 

With the recent shooting of an unarmed African American teen by police in Ferguson, Missouri and the subsequent crackdown that has ensued, the domestic news blinders have been lifted. Suddenly, international headlines typically reserved for foreign wars and political conflicts have shifted from Israel, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine to the heartland of middle America. 

The spark that lit the flame of unrest occurred on a Saturday afternoon earlier this month when Ferguson police gunned down an innocent college-bound teenager by the name of Michael Brown, littering his body with nearly a dozen bullets in broad daylight.

But what has catapulted the small-town tragedy into a global news event is how the police have responded to civilian protests demanding justice for Brown's death.

They've used rubber bullets and tear gas to suppress peaceful demonstrators. They've arrested and assaulted journalists. They've illegally told reporters and civilians not to record video with their cell-phones. 

Aside from the egregious violation of civil liberties, the most worrying development of the crackdown is how the police have appeared and acted like soldiers, not law enforcement, treating the streets of Missouri as if they were the streets of Kabul or Baghdad.

Instead of black shoes, the "police" are wearing boots. Instead of blue uniforms they're wearing camouflage and swat gear. Instead of holding batons in their hands, they're armed to the teeth with assault rifles. Instead of keeping their side-arms in their holsters, they're pointing sniper rifles directly at civilians, literally drawing a red dot on their chests as targets. They're riding in armored trucks and humvees with machine guns mounted on the roof, ready to fire at will.

Simply put, they are no longer police. They are a menacing, hyper-militarized militia, treating innocent civilians as "enemy combatants," not American citizens worthy of protection.

A SHAMEFUL DOUBLE STANDARD

While the exact circumstances of Michael Brown's death remain unclear (police claim he reached for an officer's gun, an eye-witness says he did not), what cannot be disputed is the horrific, shameful response to the shooting by the Ferguson police. 

First off, the police let Brown's body lie in the street for hours after his death, showing a repulsive lack of respect reminiscent of how pro-Russian separatists disgracefully treated bodies in the aftermath of the Malaysia Airlines crash over eastern Ukraine earlier this summer. 

To make matters worse, nearly a week after Brown's death, the police have still yet to charge the officer who killed Brown with a crime. This is the driving force motivating protesters to demonstrate against police. 

Simply put, they are seeking justice. 

The elephant in the room, which many cable news outlets have tried to gloss over, is the racial divide that exists at the center of the stand-off between protesters and police. 

The city of Ferguson is 67% African American. The Ferguson police force is 94% white. 

Because that statistic alone isn't evidence of racism, it's important to compare the Ferguson protests to others that we've seen recently in America. 

For example, take the Bundy Ranch showdown in Nevada from earlier this year.

When federal authorities threatened to take Cliven Bundy's cattle because he hadn't paid grazing fees for over 20 years, a far-right, anti-government militia rushed to Bundy's defense, pointing sniper rifles at government forces and vowing to "take them down" if they dared to proceed. 

And what did the federal agents do when threatened with violence by an all-white militia?

They backed down, of course. 

But in Ferguson, unarmed African Americans protesting the death of a teenager are tear-gassed, assaulted and arrested. 

The stark contrast between how authorities are treating the Ferguson protests versus how they handled the Bundy Ranch showdown is painfully obvious.

When confronted with white, heavily armed anti-government militias, the police walked away. When confronted with unarmed, peaceful African American protesters with their arms in the air shouting "hands up, don't shoot," they bombarded them with tear gas, rubber bullets and a military force fit for warfare in Baghdad.

WHEN THE WAR COMES HOME

After a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the battles fought in the Middle East are returning to American soil. 

Leftover military equipment from Kabul and Baghdad has been brought home, funneled to local police to use seemingly however they see fit.

As a result, American police are shifting from law enforcement to a paramilitary force, outfitted with heavy weaponry and machinery intended to fight terrorists, not unarmed civilians.

The problem here, aside from the obvious anti-democratic transition of law enforcement from those who protect and serve to those who intimidate and terrorize, is that it adds hostility and instigates fear and distrust in the hearts and minds of civilians.

The police are no longer here to protect us. They are here to provoke, antagonize and terrify us. 

On a broader scale, what's happening right now is Ferguson reminds us that we Americans are not exceptional. We are not morally superior to so called third world countries or immune to the type of police/civilian conflicts normally reserved for places like Egypt or Gaza or Iran.

In fact, in many ways we are no better than Mid-East dictators who crack down on peaceful protesters routinely. The fact that suburban Missouri looks like Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring is a testament to that harsh reality.

Most terrifying of all is that this isn't just taking place in Missouri. It's happening all over the country. And unless we take a stand against the hyper-militarization of American police, we're staring at a future where cops are extinct and soldiers take their place. And they won't just use their superior military equipment to suppress and terrorize peaceful African American protesters in suburban Missouri. 

They'll use it against all of us. Everywhere. 

Yes, We Tortured Some Folks. We Spied On Them, Too

Earlier this month, President Obama dropped an unexpected bombshell when he admitted, nonchalantly, that the United States "tortured some folks" after 9/11. 

The statement came as such a shock because up until that point no US President had even uttered the word "torture" in the post-9/11 sense, let alone acknowledged that it took place.

Similar to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the fact that America tortured our enemies during the "war on terror" has been such a hideous skeleton in our historical closet that we've collectively suppressed it from memory, vowing never to speak about it again.

But no matter how hard we try to whitewash our shameful past, we cannot escape it.

From the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay to a laundry list of unknown CIA "black sites" in between, it's clear that America committed war crimes in the wake of September 11th.

We beat detainees. We water boarded and electrocuted them. We dragged them on leashes like dogs and laughed as we did it. We forced them to endure psychological hell; blindfolding them and stripping them of their clothes and then blasting deafening music into their ears non-stop until they went mad. We used sleep deprivation, isolation, darkness and barking dogs to send them over the edge. We subjected them to severe heat and severe cold and then hung them by their wrists and arms in "high stress" positions for hours on end.

We didn't just torture them, we humiliated them. We stole their humanity. 

The "them," in this case, are hundreds- if not thousands- of Arab men who were swept up in the "war on terror." While some were indeed guilty, many others were innocent, detained indefinitely and tortured despite the fact they had never been charged with a crime.

Obama's admission, although unexpected, was an important first step in coming to terms with the sins of our past. Not only was it a direct rebuke of the Bush-Cheney horrors of post-9/11 but, more importantly, it was an acknowledgement that America had done something wrong and we were finally owning up to our mistakes in an attempt to ensure they never happen again.

ON TO THE NEXT

While Obama deserves credit for coming clean about one aspect of our shameful past, he is also refusing to admit the truth about another.

For nearly twelve years, the United States has operated in secrecy as a de-facto 21st century surveillance state. Beginning with George W. Bush in the days after 9/11 and continuing deep into the second term of Barack Obama, the powers of government spy agencies have grown exponentially, while the rights of citizens have been trampled on in the name of security. 

The government's cause is noble: to protect Americans from terrorists who will stop at nothing to carry out attacks either on our soil or against our interests worldwide. However, in that pursuit of total security we have allowed our civil liberties to be eroded to the point where they are barely recognizable anymore, forcing us to question what kind of democracy we claim to adhere to.

Our cell-phones are tracked and they have been for years. Our emails and text-messages and social media posts are monitored and mined for information. Our meta-data is swept up in a digital dragnet without our approval, stored indefinitely in a vast, expansive database in the Nevada desert.

However, if it weren't for Edward Snowden all of this would remain unknown. The intelligence apparatus would continue to gobble up information in secret, while Americans would continue to live in blissful ignorance with no knowledge of the government invading their privacy and violating their 4th Amendment rights. 

WHO IS WATCHING THE WATCHMEN?

Much like Bush and Cheney lied to the public about WMDs, the present day Intelligence Community is lying to the public about spying. 

As the Snowden leaks have proven, the NSA has been monitoring the communications of everyday Americans for years now, never once acknowledging that it takes place or asking us for our consent.

They've lied about it too. 

Just weeks before the initial Snowden leaks surfaced, then-director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to Congress when he said the NSA did not "wittingly" collect any type of metadata from Americans, even though they most certainly were.

President Obama has also been less than truthful about spying. When the Snowden leaks were raging, he kept saying "just trust us." Even today, Obama continues to claim that the NSA does not read our emails or text messages, another talking point proven false by the Snowden leaks.

In terms of the stages of recovery, when it comes to spying our Government hasn't even progressed past the first hurdle. We are still largely in denial.

LONG ROAD AHEAD

One of the core philosophies of any democracy is the right of the people to self-correct and progress. All democracies are fluid, subject to change if the people deem it necessary. 

However, if we keep our sins in the dark and refuse to confront them, they drift into nothingness, exiting the collective consciousness like they never happened. This lets off the perpetrators of injustice scot-free and leaves those in power eternally susceptible to committing the same mistake in the future. 

When we torture, or spy, or do something morally unjust that goes against our ideals and principles, we must first acknowledge that it took place. Only then can we begin the long journey of self reflection that comes with repenting our sins and ensuring they never happen again.

Unfortunately, the path to enlightenment is long in the making. Establishment forces fight to the death to make sure the truth isn't exposed so that they can continue to operate with impunity, wielding the power they refuse to let go of.

It took a decade for a US President to admit we tortured some folks after 9/11, so it probably won't be until the year 2020 that a US President admits we spied on them, too.