Featured Editorials

What possible motive does Russia have for hacking elections to favor Clinton over Bernie?

This makes no fucking sense, whatsoever:

9-13-2016 - NBCNEWS - NSA Chief: Potential Russian Hacking of U.S. Elections a Concern - The head of the National Security Agency said Tuesday that the potential for Russia to harm the U.S. electoral process in the upcoming general election is a concern.

Presidential Elections and Liberals: A Love Story? (Part 3)

Part 2 of this series1 ended with formation of the Communist Party U.S.A. No sooner did the Party form than Congress began investigating it. Supposedly, in response to our World War I enmity against the German Empire and others, Congress had passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 (actually amendments to the Espionage Act). The Sedition Act of 1918 was the first sedition law passed in the U.S. since the administration of our second President, John Adams--and that law was repealed during the administration of the very next President, Thomas Jefferson. These facts scream speak to the intent of the Framers. (Too Eighteenth Century?)

The Overman Committee, headed by Democratic Senator Lee Slater Overman, of North Carolina was a forerunner of the House Un-American Activities Committee, formed twenty years later. Overman was an ad hoc subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary (of all things).2 It operated from September 1918 to June 1919. Its charge was to investigate--wait for it--"pro-German sentiments" in the American liquor industry (the Octoberfest Revolution?).

East Coast Hurricane Prep Thread

Well, peeps, some of us on the East Coast are sighing and going into our well-established hurricane prep routine. We ALL hope that Matthew somehow tracks offshore and well offshore for the duration and lands a direct hit nowhere. Most of us can probably confess that our second hope is that if it doesn't stay offshore and hits somewhere, we hope that the effects are minimal and that the hit is not in our own backyard.

Why I'm Voting For Jill Stein

An essay was published here a few days ago titled "Why I am Voting For Hillary." While I respect the author for posting it here--"behind enemy lines," so to speak--I still felt that his reasoning was just the latest update of the same reasoning we hear every four years, which goes: You have to vote for the Democratic nominee because the Republicans are awful.

I concur: they are awful. And they'll likely always be awful. Yet some people are always trying to use this inescapable part of American political reality to justify all manner of backsliding by the other political party--you know, the one that claims to represent "the people."

So I would like to write a rebuttal here. Not of that article, but of that entire manner of thinking.

Why President Trump wouldn't be the end of the world

It's common in liberal circles these days to imagine the absolute worst possible outcome from Trump winning, and then assume that their nightmare is based on verifiable facts. When in fact it is based on conjecture, with a heavy dose of fear-based prejudice.
That's not to say Trump isn't an absolutely awful person, who would make possibly the worst president we've ever had, but that is only a educated guess.

Implications of the Trump tax debate

I'm not really sure how this is going to trend out in the long run, as a negative for Trump or a negative for Democrats and probably does depend on one's own tax situation and experience and underlying knowlege of our tax structure.

There are a couple of givens I think, one being that no one, or very few people at most, enjoy paying taxes and the other that it is the sworn goal of most companies, both large and small, to limit their taxable profits.

Pages