Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Politics Is Lindsey Graham’s Foreign Policy the New MAGA? Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, Donald Trump and Rand Paul were aligned on foreign policy. On Wednesday, Senator Lindsey Graham wished Senator Rand Paul a happy birthday. “To Senator (Rand Paul), Happy Birthday!” Graham posted on X. “I hope today is full of family, friends and good cheer.” The South Carolina Republican added, “Oh by the way, as a birthday present we have seized yet another oil tanker trying to transport sanctioned Venezuelan oil. I hear Russia isn’t too happy.” “Next year to celebrate, maybe we can do a golf outing to Venezuela and Cuba!” he added. “Should be good to go by then.” He was celebrating Donald Trump’s military actions in and around Venezuela, including cashiering the nation’s President Nicolas Maduro and potentially changing the entire regime—something Graham wants to see replicated in Cuba. The birthday boy responded. “Thanks for the B-day greetings (Lindsey Graham),” Paul replied. “Replacing one socialist with another in Venezuela doesn’t bode well for golf though. Luxuries like golf flourish only under capitalism.” Paul was referring to Venezuela’s new interim president, the hardline socialist Delcy Rodriguez, a key ally of the ousted Maduro. Paul has long been outspoken against regime-change wars and the need for congressional approval for the U.S. to go to war, and has warned about the long-term, negative, unforeseen effects and results of war. Trump now goes to war without Congress specifically to change regimes and doesn’t seem worried about the aftermath. Graham absolutely loves this, and seems almost orgasmic over the prospects of a war in Cuba, which he might get. It wasn’t always this way. As the Trump political phenomenon and movement began to take shape in 2015, the neoconservatives were first worried most about another Republican—Rand Paul and his 2016 presidential campaign. When Graham also ran for president that year, his entire purpose for being in the race was to stop Paul and tamp down on simmering antiwar sentiment in the GOP, much of it cultivated by the popular 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns of Rand’s libertarian icon father, the Texan Rep. Ron Paul. Of course, Donald Trump bulldozed through Paul, Graham, Jeb Bush, and every other candidate to win the nomination and become the 45th president. Paul and Trump would become friends and allies, so much that nearly two years into his presidency, POLITICO in August 2018 quoted an anonymous White House aide, “While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: ‘He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul.’” The report observed, “Both Paul and Trump routinely rail against foreign entanglements, foreign wars, and foreign aid — positions characterized as isolationist by critics and as ‘America first’ by the president and his supporters.” This Trump was the president who did not go to war with Iran in 2018, no matter how badly his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Sen. Graham wanted it. POLITICO observed, “the Kentucky senator and the commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the president likes to deride as ‘foreign policy eggheads,’ including those who work in his own administration.” Trump and Paul didn’t always agree on foreign policy during this time, but Trump seemed to value the libertarian Republican’s counsel in the midst of so many Washington hawks. This was the Trump that sought diplomacy with Russia, even using Paul as a vessel in that effort. This was the Trump who shocked the U.S. establishment by shaking hands with the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in 2018. More from POLITICO on how the Trump-Paul alliance took shape eight years ago: [BLOCK]Paul has quietly emerged as an influential sounding board and useful ally for the president, who frequently clashes with his top advisers on foreign policy. The Kentucky senator’s relationship with Trump, developed via frequent cellphone calls and over rounds of golf at the president’s Virginia country club, became publicly apparent for the first time on Wednesday when the senator announced he had hand-delivered a letter to the Kremlin on Trump’s behalf.[/BLOCK] Today, Paul is persona non grata to Trump. It is now Graham who plays golf with the president, and who seems to have the neoconservative Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s back in inner-circle conversations and politics. And now American foreign policy looks a lot more like Rubio and Graham’s vision than Paul’s, or even Trump’s from just a few short years ago. This is what makes Graham so very happy. Like his friend, the late Senator John McCain, like the Bush II team of Cheneys, Wolfowitzes, and Rumsfelds, and like the pundits and writers Bill Kristol and David Frum—for neocons, war is their business. It’s always their business. Business is good right now. First up, Venezuela, maybe Cuba next. Neocons are riding high. Paul openly blames America’s new war on Venezuela on Graham’s rounds of golf with this version of the president. He says Trump is now “under the thrall of Lindsey Graham.” By the looks of it, he’s right. The post Is Lindsey Graham’s Foreign Policy the New MAGA? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Trump is Reviving ‘Spheres of Influence.’ That’s a Good Thing  The age-old framework is a welcome alternative to liberal internationalism. Credit: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images President Donald Trump’s renewed emphasis on dividing the international system into spheres of influence represents an overdue recognition of geopolitical reality over ideological fantasy. For decades, American foreign policy has been imprisoned by the illusion that the post-Cold War “unipolar moment” would last forever—that Washington could reshape the world in its image through democracy promotion, humanitarian interventions, and ever-expanding security commitments. Trump’s approach, whatever its rhetorical excesses, acknowledges what every serious student of international relations understands: Great powers have legitimate security interests in their near abroad, and attempting to deny this reality produces conflict rather than preventing it. The bipartisan foreign policy establishment clings to the notion that America must maintain primacy everywhere, all the time. This maximalist vision has produced a series of costly failures ranging from Iraq, to Libya, to the futile attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO’s orbit—an effort which contributed to the current catastrophe. The spheres of influence framework offers an alternative: recognizing that Russia has interests in Eastern Europe, that China has interests in East Asia, and yes, that America has interests in the Western Hemisphere. This is not appeasement, but prudence. It’s the difference between George Kennan’s containment of the Soviet Union and the neoconservatives’ project of global transformation. The Monroe Doctrine, after all, was itself a sphere of influence claim—one that served American security for generations. Critics will immediately point to Ukraine, claiming that acknowledging spheres of influence means abandoning democracies to their autocratic neighbors. This misunderstands both the concept and the stakes. Spheres of influence don’t eliminate sovereignty, they serve as a recognition that geography matters and that great powers will act to prevent hostile military alliances on their borders. Would America tolerate Chinese military bases in Mexico? The question answers itself. The tragedy of Ukraine stems partly from the West’s refusal to acknowledge this reality. Promising NATO membership without the means or will to defend it created the worst of both worlds—provocation without deterrence. A spheres of influence framework would have meant negotiating Ukrainian neutrality, potentially avoiding the current bloodshed while preserving Ukrainian independence in ways that matter most to Ukrainians themselves. In Asia, the spheres concept could provide the basis for stable competition with China. Beijing will dominate its near seas; pretending otherwise is fantasy. But dominance in the South China Sea need not mean Chinese hegemony over Japan, South Korea, or the broader Pacific. A spheres framework allows for negotiated understandings about where core interests lie and where accommodation is possible. The alternative—treating every Chinese action as a prelude to global conquest—locks us into a confrontation that serves neither side’s interests and risks catastrophic miscalculation. Trump’s instincts, however imperfectly articulated, align with a venerable realist tradition from George Washington’s Farewell Address through the founding of the Concert of Europe in the 19th Century to Nixon’s opening to China. These weren’t exercises in cynicism but in sustainable statecraft. The statesmen behind them recognized that international order requires accepting the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. The liberal internationalist project promised perpetual peace and required perpetual intervention to try achieving it. It delivered neither peace nor democracy, but exhausted American power and credibility. The spheres of influence approach offers something more modest but more achievable: a world of managed competition among great powers, each secure in its core interests, each restrained from unlimited ambitions. None of this is without difficulty. Defining spheres is contentious. Smaller nations fear abandonment. Larger nations can abuse the concept. And America’s allies in Europe and Asia will need reassurance that the U.S. accepting a spheres of influence framework doesn’t mean American withdrawal from commitments that genuinely matter. But these are problems to be managed, not reasons to reject the framework entirely. The current alternative—pretending geography doesn’t matter, that NATO can expand indefinitely, that America can police every border and guarantee every nation—has manifestly failed. Trump’s sphere of influence thinking, stripped of its bombast, points toward a more sustainable international order: one where American power focuses on core interests rather than dissipating in peripheral conflicts, where diplomacy acknowledges the security concerns of other great powers rather than dismissing them as illegitimate, and where the goal is stability among major powers, rather than the transformation of the international system. This won’t satisfy those who believe American foreign policy should be an exercise in ideological crusading. But it might produce what decades of liberal hegemony have failed to deliver: an international order that doesn’t require endless American intervention to sustain, and that reduces rather than multiplies the risk of great power war. The question isn’t whether spheres of influence exist—they always have. The question is whether we acknowledge them and manage them sensibly, or continue denying reality until it imposes itself catastrophically upon us. Trump, for all his flaws, at least asks the right question. The post Trump is Reviving ‘Spheres of Influence.’ That’s a Good Thing  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Language is fascinating. The way humans have come up with literally thousands of languages to communicate with one another, the grammatical structures we've concocted, the fact that we learn our native tongues so naturally, and how powerful words can be are all testaments to how cool language is. But when you drill down even further, language gets even cooler, and in ways that most of us aren't even aware of. Linguist and self-professed "etymology nerd" Adam Aleksic shared a video on TikTok explaining how many common phrases we use for thinking directly reference walking. We often use metaphors in our speech, of course, but there are many that we likely don't even recognize as metaphors. We use metaphors all the time. Giphy He starts with "by the way," which literally means being next to the way, or the path we're supposed to be on. It indicates that we're taking a mental detour from the path we were supposed to be on to introduce something unrelated. On the other hand, when we're talking about something that is actually on the path we're meant to be on, we say, "of course," which literally means "of the path." "We use this metaphor all the time when we say, 'you're on track' or 'you're way off,' literally implying that you're not where you should be on the 'path' of thinking," Aleksic says, explaining that there's a greater metaphor at play here that "thinking is walking." Once you see some examples, it becomes so clear. Our minds "race" or "wander," our thoughts "stray," and we "arrive" at conclusions. @etymologynerd "Via" just meant "road" in Latin #etymology #linguistics #language "All this relies on physical motion, even though your mind is stationary," says Aleksic. "But it's from that idea—that thoughts can walk—that we can then go ahead and make statements about our own cognition. Like how I just used 'from'—originally a preposition for motion—and 'go ahead' to indicates continuation…Once you know thoughts can walk, you can 'follow' them down 'a line of thinking' until you 'come to' a resolution."Even a saying as common as "Way to go!" is a metaphor indicating that you are on the correct path. Once you start thinking about it, it's easy to come up with many more examples of how we conceptualize thinking as walking:"Let's circle back.""Walk me through your thinking.""I'm backtracking here.""The thought crossed my mind.""No way.""Let's move on." We use physical movement metaphors to conceptualize ideas. Giphy Some commenters shared that their languages use similar metaphors:"In Norwegian you can say 'du er på helt på bærtur' when someone is way off, and it means that you are on a berry trip—specifically blueberry trip.""In Czech, you say btw as ''mimochodem', while mimo means outside and chodem means a step or a walk, so literally meaning by the walk.""En passant in french is the same way. It's like 'I passed near this thought' while on my way to another thought."There's something to be said for "thinking is walking" even beyond the metaphorical way we describe our thoughts. Many of the world's greatest thinkers were also obsessive walkers. In 2014, Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz of Stanford University conducted a foundational series of studies on 176 people, mostly college students, to see if walking had any effect on different types of thinking. They found that participants who walked instead of sitting or being pushed in a wheelchair consistently came up with more creative responses on tests commonly used to measure creative thinking, such as thinking of alternate uses for common objects or coming up with original analogies to capture complex ideas. In one test, they had some people walk outside and others walk on a treadmill, neither of which seemed to make a difference. Wherever people walked, their answers were more creative than those who sat or were pushed in a wheelchair. "Thinking is walking" and waking can also help us think. Photo credit: Canva“Incorporating physical activity into our lives is not only beneficial for our hearts but our brains as well," Oppezzo said. "This research suggests an easy and productive way to weave it into certain work activities." Could we perhaps say, "walking is thinking" in addition to "thinking is walking"? A 2021 study of students in Japan found similar correlations between walking and strong responses on alternate use tests that measure divergent thinking. So it appears at least some types of thinking are enhanced by walking, which of course makes it all the more fun that we use so many walking metaphors to describe our thoughts. You can follow Adam Aleksic for more on TikTok here or check out his book, Algospeak: How Social Media Is Transforming the Future of Language, here.This article originally appeared last year.

Gen Zers joke that their parents were born in the 1900s as a way to teasingly make it seem like their parents are much older than they actually are. But the kids coming up behind them are either really good at sarcasm or they actually believe the 80s were more like the 1780s. A 7th grade teacher asked her class full of Gen Alphas what they thought the worst part of the 80s was, and no one was prepared for their answers. When most people think about the 80s, they think of big hair teased and sprayed to the gods. Bright colors, roller skates, and people walking around with giant boomboxes on their shoulders (as if everyone wanted to hear their music choices) are also at the top of the list for things that represent the 80s. But when thinking of the worst part of that decade, the lack of things like GPS, cell phones, and search engines would probably be at the top of that list. Retro vibes with bold colors and music! ?✨ #80sFashionPhoto credit: CanvaGen Alpha has other ideas about the worst part of the 80s. If you lived through that decade, you may want to remove your hat so you can scratch your head. The teacher who goes by Meliciousmo on social media recently uploaded the prompt and her students' answers on TikTok, giving viewers a chuckle. One kid answers the prompt with, "No electricity. No good food." It's starting out pretty questionably, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming his family watches a lot of Little House on the Prairie and his centuries are mixed up. The next kid's response will probably nail it. Well, maybe not. Through a few spelling errors, the response explains that the worst part about the 80s is that they didn't have cars. Yes, this sweet summer child surmised that life was tough because cars didn't exist, so walking everywhere or riding a horse and buggy was imperative. Obviously, this is false, because there were cars in the 80s. They had seatbelts in them for decoration, and kids would slide across the backseat when their dad turned a corner too fast as their mom reflexively extended a stiff arm to stop them from flying out of the car. Confused expression with a questioning gesture.Photo credit: CanvaClearly, some of the students were exposed to either 80s movies or TV shows because a couple of answers were spot on. One student wrote that running out of hairspray was the worst thing about the 80s, while another said, "People listening to other people's phone calls." Yikes. They're right. There were no cell phones, so there were no Bluetooth devices, so everyone was privy to your private conversation. Another child said nothing was bad about the 80s because "they had cool clothes, music, people, and hair." Those are big facts, kid.But other suggestions included having to walk through rivers because of the lack of buses, or the worst part of the 80s: the Cold War. @meliciousmo Every Friday I ask my students a fun question. This was today’s with some of their responses. ??♀️#teachersoftiktok #funnyanswers #genx #middleschool ♬ Don't Stop Believin' (2024 Remaster) - Journey One person writes, "There’s[sic] like 3 kids who know the 1980s are not the same as the 1780s. LOL."Another laughs, "Gosh I’m still tired from walking through all the rivers to school."Someone else thinks the generational gap between parents has something to do with it, "Some of these are spot on…some think we’re over 100 years old! You can tell who has Gen X parents and who has Millennial parents!" Students eagerly participate in a classroom discussion.Photo credit: CanvaBook It pizza party anyone? (Or was that the 90s?) Either way, someone is proposing that iconic classic, writing, "Ok so some good ones, shoulder pads, people listening in to phone calls and hair spary[sic] are all legit. Give those kids a classic 80s pizza paety[sic]!! As for WW2, no tv, cars, and the great depression. Well those kids need a new history book lol."Another person adds a pressure that only those who were adults in the 80s could appreciate, saying, "I didn't even grow up in the 80s and I KNOW it was writing a check at the grocery store with four people behind you and the person behind you had a full belt. The pressure must have been CRIPPLING."This article originally appeared last year

Patriotism can feel like a loaded term sometimes, as the meaning can range in people's minds from a basic love of country to a fierce loyalty one is willing to die for. What constitutes "country" can also impact how we perceive of patriotism, as there's a difference between the land, the people, the ideals, and the current government. And then there's nationalism, which may sound like the same thing but isn't. So what's the difference? Episcopal priest Joseph Yoo shared his thoughts on what separates patriotism from nationalism, and people are appreciating having the key differences laid out so clearly. @joseph.yoo Nationalism vs. Patriotism #yourEpiscoPal #YourKoreanFather #nationalism #patriotism #LanguageLearning "Patriotism is love," Yoo begins. "It's gratitude. It's saying, 'I care about my country enough to tell the truth about it, to celebrate what's good and work to fix what's broken.""Nationalism, that's idolatry," he continues. "It says my nation is the nation above critique, above others, God's favorite. And once you slap God's seal of approval on your own flag, congratulations, you've just made your country a 'golden calf.'" He explained the patriotism results in activism like that of John Lewis crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge to demand that the country live up to its professed ideals. Nationalism results in tragedies like the January 6th invasion of the Capitol, where Confederate flags and crosses were seen in the same mob. — (@) "Patriotism says, 'I love my family enough to admit when we've messed up, and I will help us grow," Yoo says." Nationalism says, 'My family is perfect, everyone else is trash, and if you disagree you are out.""One is honest love. The other is toxic possession," he says. "One builds. One bullies."Yoo concluded with a biblical point: "Jesus never called us to worship a flag, only to love our neighbor."It's important to differentiate between patriotism and nationalism because the latter has become a bit of a lightning rod in the political discourse. Some use it as a pejorative term, while others have embraced it as something totally acceptable or even positive. When the definitions are muddied, it causes confusion. Flags can be a symbol of both patriotism and nationalism.Photo credit: CanvaOf course, Yoo is not the sole authority on what these words mean, but his thoughts are aligned with what the neutral arbiters of definitions say they mean. Dictionary.com has an entire page discussing the terms, defining patriotism as "devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty,” and nationalism as "the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations," ultimately leading to how the two words are used: "Patriotism generally has a positive connotation. It’s used for various positive sentiments, attitudes, and actions involving loving one’s country and serving the great good of all its people.Nationalism generally has a negative connotation. It’s used for political ideologies and movements that a more extreme and exclusionary love of one’s country—at the expense of foreigners, immigrants, and even people in a country who aren’t believed to belong in some way, often racial and religious grounds." Love of one's country is nice. But there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Photo credit: CanvaBritannica also has a whole page about the two words, with this basic synopsis of the differences:"Patriotism is a feeling of attachment and commitment to a country, nation, or political community, and its conception has roots tracing back to Greek and Roman antiquity. It is associated with the love of law and common liberty, the search for the common good, and the duty to behave justly toward one’s country. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a more modern ideology that emerged in the 18th century, focusing on the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state, often surpassing other individual or group interests."And then there are some famous takes on patriotism: “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”― James Baldwin“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.”― Mark Twain Mark Twain had quite a bit to say about patriotism. Giphy “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”― Theodore Roosevelt“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.”― Sydney J. HarrisThere's nothing wrong with loving your country, but anything taken to excess and exclusion isn't healthy. Nationalism is excessive and exclusive in its very nature, and while patriotism can be weaponized, when kept in check it's what keeps people striving to make their homelands the best that they can be for everyone who lives there. This article originally appeared last year

There are a few things that are harder than saying goodbye to a pet; it can be as difficult as losing a close friend or family member. But for some reason, many people feel that they are not supposed to grieve as deeply for the loss of a pet as they do for a human. That’s why the kindness shown by the staff at Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen in Saint Joseph, Missouri, is so extraordinary.CousinHomer, a country musician in Missouri, was faced with the terrible decision to put down his 13-year-old dog, Bella, so he wanted her last meal to be something truly special: a “big, juicy steak.” The staff at the restaurant asked him what he wanted for sides, and CousinHomer said he just wanted the steak. “They told me it would be the same price with or without them, so I might as well get them. I explained to them that I was having my dog, Bella, put to sleep later that day, and I wanted her last meal to be a nice, juicy steak,” CousinHomer said in his video. @clevelandclinic Five-finger breathing is a simple but powerful breathing technique that induces deep relaxation — and you can do just about anywhere! ?️ Unlike other types of breathwork, five-finger breathing is a multisensory experience where you concentrate on more than just your breath. You also focus on the movement and sensation of one hand touching another, slowly and with intentionality. This helps your brain enter a state of deep relaxation, which causes it to release endorphins. An incredible act of kindness“When I showed up at the restaurant about 30 minutes later to pick up her food, the manager handed me the bag of food and said, ‘We are so sorry about your dog. This meal is on us.’ I really couldn't believe it. It was so nice of them,” CousinHomer said. However, when he got home, he saw that they had done something even more special: the entire staff had signed a card that read: "Our deepest sympathy in the loss of your best friend. She'll be waiting for you over the Rainbow Bridge."“So I just want to publicly say, thank you, Cheddar's, for being so kind and thoughtful. It really meant the world to me,” CousinHomer concluded his video. But that wasn’t the end of the story. CousinHomer asked people to tag Cheddar’s in the post, so they know how many saw their act of kindness. Cheddar’s followed up with another act of kindness, which CousinHomer documented in a follow-up video. @cousinhomer CHEDDAR’S Restaurant Did It AGAIN. Wow!! (A Must See). #cheddars #cheddarsscratchkitchen #rainbowbridge #steakdinner #compassion @Cheddar’s After Cheddar’s was flooded with people tagging them in the story, they sent CousinHomer a branded fleece that he can wear like a snuggie. “May comfort wrap around you like a warm Honey Butter Croissant. Your Cheddar’s family is here for you, Cousin,” the company wrote in the comments.Why the loss of a pet hurts so muchLosing a pet can be just as hard as losing a human loved one, but there is one thing that's uniquely painful about putting down a pet. No matter how much we know we made the right decision, it still won’t stop us from ruminating over it.“You do that because emotional pain hurts just like physical pain. And we are hard-wired to recognize pain as a teacher,” Sarah Hoggan, a pet loss grief advocate, said in a TED Talk. “Our body has reflexes that will pull our hand off a hot stove. We have pulled ourselves to safety even before we know the burn has occurred. Unfortunately, no such instant rescue mechanism exists for emotional pain. That means we need to study the events that led to the pain, to try to learn something from it and avoid it in the future.”Ultimately, CousinHomer is going to be in a period of grief for quite a while, but it’s nice to know that there are a whole lot of people who recognized his pain and let him know that it was completely warranted to need some love after the death of a pet. At a moment when you have to make an incredibly difficult decision, having people understand your pain can make all the difference. - YouTubeyoutu.beThis article originally appeared last year

Everything turning out right. The post The album made by Joni Mitchell’s favourite band in the world first appeared on Far Out Magazine.