"Remember that the words 'political parties,' 'corporation' and 'company' are not even mentioned in our Constitution, raising the central question of why they are ruling 'we the people' today.”—Ralph Nader

“These people do not own the land and for heaven’s sake, it’s very plain that the Army should not be using automatic weapons against we the people; that’s not part of our Constitution. It’s just unbelievable that this could be happening in America!”—Cliven Bundy

 

For all the misgivings Americans may have about the Iraq War -- its rationale, its execution, and its aftermath -- there is at least one thing of which to be proud: our support of a free, autonomous, and democratic Kurdistan.

The story of the Kurds and their steadfast support of an Iraq free from fascism of either the Baathist or Islamist type is one worth telling and retelling. It’s one of uncommon moral clarity.

Is a vote for an independent or third-party candidate a wasted vote? Is it fair to accuse a candidate not running with major party backing of being a “spoiler”? Is the potential for vote-splitting a compelling reason to adopt major reforms to our electoral system?

These issues have been debated in America since the Founding Fathers cautioned against the two-party system. Some notable presidential elections in which third-party candidates have been criticized as spoilers include Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, and Ralph Nader in 2000.

It’s been a busy month on the privacy front.

For starters, word got out on August 5 that Russian hackers stole 1.2 billion usernames and passwords across several kinds of websites. Then, Facebook got into hot water — again — when it decided to force its risky Messenger app on unwilling users.