Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

Jun 5, 2016

Crisis: Bernie Sanders, Clinton, Reich, 9/11 Evidence
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1.
Sanders Explains Why He Keeps Going and May Just
     Win California on Tuesday

2. Clinton’s Speech: A Lost Opportunity
3. It’s Not Over Until It’s Over
4. US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Sunday, June 5, 2016.


This is a crisis log. It is fairly brief because it is sunday today, and because I earlier today uploaded "On Politics", which I wrote originally in the beginning of June of 1983, when I was 33. It turns out that I still think - at 66 - the same (with very few exceptions) about politics as I did 33 years ago.

This is something very few people can say (honestly and controllably). I can and I do, and the main reason is how I think about politics: most people who are interested in politics do not look upon it with a good scientific background and a good philosophical background, whereas I do and did. And this makes for considerable differences with most.

I thought the essay quite good when I wrote it, and I still think so: It is original, it is well-founded, and it may teach intelligent persons quite a few things about politics that they did not realize before.

As to the present crisis log: There are 4 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is a pro-Sanders article that I review because Sanders is the only chance on a good American president; item 2 is about Clinton's speech against Trump, and it so happens that I am a bit more positive about it than the writer of the article; item 3 is an article by Robert Reich that also supports Sanders, and is quite good about the reasons to support Sanders, and also contains an interesting video of 6 minutes; and item 4 is about an interesting article about the US government's intentional destruction of 9/11 evidence.

1. Sanders Explains Why He Keeps Going and May Just Win California on Tuesday

The first item i
s by Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet:
This contains the following:
After a Memorial Day rally in Oakland, Sanders sat down with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and reflected on the campaign.
(..)
“Another day at the office,” says a laughing Sanders in the opening frame as the two sit down in a City Hall conference room. The video backtracks and shows Sanders at the podium before thousands recounting the campaign’s improbable successes. They've won primaries and caucuses in 20 states, more than 9 million votes, and all because of a populist economic message that party insiders never expected to catch fire. Sanders turns to Reich and explains, “Look, you are out there working two or three jobs, you’re worried to death about your kid, and you see all the income and wealth going to the top 1 percent. You know what, you’re not a happy camper.”
In fact, the quotes come from the video Bernie and Bob, that is also linked below, in item 3. This is also in the video:
“So I look around, and maybe my main motive is I have seven grandkids, beautiful children,” Sanders replies, “and we’ve got to deal with climate change. We’ve got to deal with health care. We’ve got to deal with higher education. We’ve got to rebuild our infrastructure. We’ve got to guarantee health care to all people. And who’s going to do it?”
He is quite right, also in quoting personal evidence, for your family and your (grand-)children generally are more important to you than other people.

The article ends as follows:
Sanders and his supporters know they have not just defied expectations with their caucus and primary victories, message of economic justice, and grassroots fundraising and organizing, but that they have altered and shaped the national political narrative in 2016. They know they are heading to the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia in unprecedented numbers—with 40-something percent or more of the pledged delegates and most of the under-45 vote, representing the party’s and the nation’s future.

The final chapters of the nominating process have yet to be written and that’s why they are not stopping, but pushing harder than ever to end this phase of the 2016 election as they began in Iowa—in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton or a victory in the largest and most diverse state.
This is a good article, that is recommended, though I willingly grant it is written by a Sanders-supporter for Sanders-supporters. (I am one too, although I am not American: He is the only respectable presidential candidate.)

2. Clinton’s Speech: A Lost Opportunity

The second item is by Paul R. Pillar on Consortiumnews:

This starts as follows:

The easy part for Hillary Clinton and her speechwriters in constructing what was billed as a major foreign policy speech was to enumerate some of the many valid reasons that Donald Trump is unfit to lead the United States in its relations with the rest of the world.

Clinton is correct that what has passed for Trump’s ideas on foreign policy “are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.” Trump’s efforts to sound coherent have been laden with contradictions and declarations that resemble bumper stickers more than carefully thought-out policy proposals.
(..)
Clinton is correct that Trump is “temperamentally unfit” for the presidency and that it is easy to imagine him “leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”

First of all, I do neither like nor trust Hillary Clinton. I think she is obviously a lot better than Donald Trump, but I also think Bernie Sanders is - by far - the
best presidential candidate.

Then again, it seems I was better pleased with her speech than Paul Pillar was, who writes:

Clinton’s speech was much less than it could have been, however, by being structured around the criticisms of Trump and sounding as if she were defining herself mainly as the un-Trump. Such an approach is not going to satisfy those who sense that the United States has, through several administrations, been suffering from some fundamental misdirections.

I do not think this is relevant criticism if the choice is (as Hillary thinks/hopes
/says it is) between her and Trump.

Pillar is more justified with the following criticism:

Clinton’s overall approach is grounded in that central tenet of Washington conventional wisdom that, as she put it in the speech, “America is an exceptional country,” that “we lead with purpose, and we prevail,” and that “if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void.”

First of all, if the USA is exceptional it is exceptional especially because it contains fast droves of extremely ill-educated quite unintelligent rednecks.
(I agree these are "exceptional", namely in knowing far too little to cast
a rationally informed vote.)

Also, while you may disagree with my intellectual disdain for protestant rednecks without almost any decent education or rational ideas, you should agree that Clinton was merely flattering her American audience.

Second, the idea that "
if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum" is plain baloney for "if we don't police the world, we will loose the full hegemony we have now" - which may be true, but is caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the quite crazy enormous investments in military things that the USA is committed to (while its infra-structure and education are collapsing).

So in this case, indeed quite possibly because I do and did not except much from Clinton that I agree to, it seems I am a bit more pleased with Clinton's anti-Trump rhetoric than is Paul Pillar.

3.
It’s Not Over Until It’s Over

The third
item is by Robert Reich on his site:
This starts as follows:

This morning I heard from an old friend here in California who said “I’m for Bernie, but he doesn’t really have a chance anymore. So isn’t my vote for him in the California primary just prolonging the agony, and indirectly helping Trump?”

I told him:

1.  True, the electoral numbers are daunting, and Bernie faces an uphill task, but a win Tuesday will help enormously. One out of 8 Americans lives in California.

2.  Regardless of the electoral math, Bernie’s candidacy has never been mainly about Bernie. It’s been about a movement to reclaim our democracy and economy from the moneyed interests.
Yes, indeed - although I might also have remarked that the "old friend" of Reich seems to believe the propaganda in the main media (which was there
ever since Sanders announced his candidacy) that he can't win, won't win, and
shouldn't win. (Read The Guardian!)

Anyway... here is a list of excellent points that show why I support Bernie Sanders:

3. The goals Bernie has enunciated in his campaign are essential to our future: getting big money out of politics and reversing widening inequality; moving toward a single-payer healthcare system and free tuition at public universities (both financed by higher taxes on the richest Americans and on Wall Street); a $15 minimum wage; decriminalization of marijuana and an end to mass incarceration; a new voting rights act; immigration reform; and a carbon tax.
Incidentally, it seems Hillary Clinton does not share these - very important - ends (except perhaps for a carbon tax).
4.  Bernie’s successes don’t help Trump.
Again I say: Of course! And who thinks so except people who believe in the vast amounts of propaganda the main media deliver?

In any case: there also is a decent video about this. I give the Youtube link because it was difficult to start on my Firefox on Robert Reich's site:

This is well worth seeing (though I found it difficult to believe in the number of previous viewers: 408?!).

4. US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

The fourth
item is by Washington's Blog on his site:

This starts as follows (colors and bolding in the original)

Presumption of a Cover-Up …

Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime.  American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for  the person who destroyed the evidence.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

And that is all I am going to quote from this fairly long and quite good presentation of lots of evidence that the US government is intentionally destroying evidence about 9/11.

I do not know the truth about 9/11 but - having seen quite a few videos about it, meanwhile - I think (i) the official story was completely insufficient, and (ii) my opinions on Cheney and Rumsfeld are low enough to consider the possibility that they engineered it - but no: I have no direct evidence they did,
although I do think they may have.

In any case, this is a recommended article.

----------------------------------------------------------

       home - index - summaries - mail