Skip to main content

A Bernie Sanders legacy?

One has to assume, certainly at the present time, that it is unlikely that US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will make it to the White House.    But about the policies Sanders has espoused and the following they have garnered?    The take on that by at least one writer in The New Yorker in "How California made Bernie Sanders a better Candidate".....

"This morning, just before endorsing Clinton for President, Barack Obama met with Sanders to try to persuade the Vermonter to abandon the race and support Clinton’s candidacy. In trying to find common ground, Obama surely drew on the similarities between his and Sanders’s Presidential campaigns: the swell of young voters, the tenacious optimism. The stories that are already being told about the Sanders campaign are about young people for whom socialism is now a source of inspiration rather than fear, and about the Democratic Party, which Sanders has raged against for decades, now coming to the left to meet him.

But another project seemed to emerge in Sanders’s California tour, one that will also outlast his campaign: the marriage of democratic socialism with the American experience. He stopped talking so much about the Nordic ideal; he became more finely attuned to what was exceptional, for good and bad, about this place. Sanders’s own evolution made you wonder what might have happened if the campaign had reached California earlier. The most obvious casualties of the Presidential-primary calendar, with its early emphasis on very white states (Iowa, New Hampshire), are candidates whose appeal is strongest among minority voters. But it is also not hard to see how those places limited Sanders at the same time that they propelled him, and to wonder what exactly his campaign might have looked like if he had not spent its formative days in icy, ethnically homogeneous small cities, conjuring dreams of Copenhagen."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...