1. Sanders Explains Why He Keeps Going and
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
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, June 5,
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.
1. Sanders Explains Why He Keeps Going and May Just Win
California on Tuesday
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
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
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
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.
The first item is by Steven Rosenfeld on
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.
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:
“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.”
“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
Clinton’s Speech: A Lost
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
First of all, if the USA is
exceptional it is exceptional especially because it contains fast
droves of extremely ill-educated quite unintelligent rednecks.
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.”
(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
third item is by Robert
Reich on his site:
This starts as follows:
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
This morning I heard from an
old friend here in California who said “I’m for Bernie, but he doesn’t
have a chance anymore. So isn’t my vote for him in the California
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
Tuesday will help enormously. One out of 8 Americans lives in
2. Regardless of the
electoral math, Bernie’s candidacy has never been mainly about Bernie.
been about a movement to reclaim our democracy and economy from the
ever since Sanders announced his candidacy) that he can't win, won't
shouldn't win. (Read The Guardian!)
Anyway... here is a list of excellent points that show why I support
3. The goals Bernie has
enunciated in his campaign are essential to our future: getting big
of politics and reversing widening inequality; moving toward a
healthcare system and free tuition at public universities (both
higher taxes on the richest Americans and on Wall Street); a $15
decriminalization of marijuana and an end to mass incarceration; a new
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
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
4. US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence
item is by Washington's Blog on his site:
This starts as follows (colors and bolding
in the original)
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
a presumption of guilt for the person who destroyed the
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
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.