Ripples of Hope
“Our answer is the world’s hope, it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and obstacles of the swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that comes with even the most peaceful progress.
“The world demands the qualities of youth, not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. It is a revolutionary world we live in ….
“First is the danger of futility, the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills -- against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Yet many of the world’s greatest movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man …Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.
“It is from numerous diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
-- Senator Robert F. Kennedy; South Africa; June 6, 1966.
I loved last night’s Democratic Party primary debate, between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Even as a Sanders’s supporter, I felt that Ms. Clinton did well in the first-half of the debate. It was evident that she had a campaign message that she was intent upon delivering; if one were to simply compare her to the remaining republican candidates, she clearly has superior communication skills.
But, of course, it wasn’t a competition between Hillary and the republican nominee. Rather, it was between Clinton and Sanders. And, perhaps especially during the second-half of the debate, the public saw the contrast between the illusion of security offered by clinging to the current economic trends, versus the excitement and promise of a new revolutionary movement for social justice.
My intent here is not to insult Hillary or her supporters. There is common ground between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns, for example, on the issue of the water in Flint. We know that the political machine that poisoned little children -- and everyone else -- in Flint can not even claim ignorance, as they were fully warned. Thus, these poor excuses for human beings are not even covered by Voltaire’s saying that ignorance is the mother of all cruelty.
Yet, a closely-related question -- one that has begged to be asked in their discussions of Flint -- defines the very real, and extremely important, differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, not only as politicians, but as human beings. And that has to do with fracking.
Now, no highly-contested campaign goes 100% smoothly. And no candidate is perfect. But Hillary’s answer wasn’t rooted in her being caught off-guard. No, it was a packaged response that has been rehearsed numerous times. And I know that it had to be painful for her supporters at the grass roots, who are conscious of the environment. For just as there is no question among the scientific community that “climate change” is real -- with only a few who are paid to pretend it is in dispute -- there is really no question that fracking poisons the water, ground, and air. And, of course, those who are paid by the energy corporations pretend that it is in dispute. Sound familiar?
Ms. Clinton danced around the question. In essence, she said that as long as a community is for fracking, it’s okay. We know that she has advocated fracking in the recent past, which translates to trying to convince a community that the profits from it outweigh the risks. Thus, the majority have the power to poison the minority’s water, for financial gain.
Now, that is simple unacceptable. It is something that I sincerely urge my friends who support Hillary to give serious thought to.
Bernie’s answer was as brief as it was definitive: he is opposed to fracking. He stands with the people who want safe drinking water for their families.
Thus, I’m not surprised that those running Hillary’s campaign are desperately attempting to “spin” last night’s debate, and distract the public’s attention on real and serious issues. For that is what campaigns do after their candidate had a tough night. Rather than discuss what is real and serious, they talk about what is made-up and the opposite of serious.
The Sanders’s campaign is in very good position now. Our opposition will continue to try to convince of otherwise, of course. And there’s no better example of the tools the establish will use than CNN and MSNBC. That’s no more surprising than learning that McDonald’s will be serving cheese burgers. (True fact: when Chris Christie was discussing a possible presidential run in 2012, he told his advisors that he would refuse to stop consuming food from Burger King.)
The truth is that our opposition in the 2016 Democratic primary never thought that Bernie Sanders would be where he is today. Nor did our enemies in the republican party. And they are our enemies. Any republican who supports fracking is your and my enemy. They are hoping to make financial profits off the suffering of our communities. And, as we see in Flint, the republican establishment does not care about what suffering they cause in a community.
In fact, the Sanders revolution is going a bit better than even I could have hoped for. So let’s keep it going!
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
I had a fun time yesterday, I actually had a couple of good conversations and even learned something. Who would have thought that people who honestly think themselves Democrats believe that, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the "lesser of evils" is the latter?
Now, as to your post:
Collateral damage. I would gently disagree with one nuance, that the frackers want to make money by poisoning us. That suggests they are more evil than they really are. What they want is to make money by whatever means are expedient, and if you and I and others are poisoned in the process, then it sucks to be us, doesn't it? (Rather the same attitude can be found among those who propose killing this terrorist or that, or indeed, raiding this or that house for drugs: if a few dishes are broken in the process, well, too bad. "Too bad," incidentally, does not rhyme with "I'm sorry."
M. Voltaire suggested that ignorance was the mother of cruelty. May I suggest that indifference is its father? And I note, contra the good philosophe, that when ignorance is informed and enlightened, it is no guarantee that the cruelty will cease. This or that specific outrage may be corrected, as those who are responsible strive to cover their asses, but the pattern continues. A stream is poisoned in West Virginia, another in North Carolina. Drinking water is poisoned in one city, and another stream poisoned in West Virginia. And so it goes. Meanwhile, a community which is, actually, ignorant, or a farmer, or what have you, "decides" to allow fracking for the cash it will bring, which if one agrees with Mrs Clinton, is perfectly all right. It raises a philosophical question: at what point of consequences does "caveat emptor" cease to be operative?
As for fracking, the problem is compounded when, as in Pennsylvania for example, the state government has enacted a law giving communities no say in the question at all, when they have no recourse to keep the frackers from spoiling their lands and polluting and consuming their water (that self-same Susquehanna about which you wrote so lyrically the other day). This is Eminent Domain taken to new heights of absurdity, alienating the property not just of this individual or that neighborhood, but an entire community. Which, presumably, is also perfectly fine by Mrs Clinton's standards.
-- Mal
This you said above:
"Yet, a closely-related question -- one that has begged to be asked in their discussions of Flint -- defines the very real, and extremely important, differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, not only as politicians, but as human beings. And that has to do with fracking.
Now, no highly-contested campaign goes 100% smoothly. And no candidate is perfect. But Hillary’s answer wasn’t rooted in her being caught off-guard. No, it was a packaged response that has been rehearsed numerous times. And I know that it had to be painful for her supporters at the grass roots, who are conscious of the environment. For just as there is no question among the scientific community that “climate change” is real -- with only a few who are paid to pretend it is in dispute -- there is really no question that fracking poisons the water, ground, and air. And, of course, those who are paid by the energy corporations pretend that it is in dispute. Sound familiar?
Ms. Clinton danced around the question. In essence, she said that as long as a community is for fracking, it’s okay. We know that she has advocated fracking in the recent past, which translates to trying to convince a community that the profits from it outweigh the risks. Thus, the majority have the power to poison the minority’s water, for financial gain.
Now, that is simply unacceptable. It is something that I sincerely urge my friends who support Hillary to give serious thought to."
-----THANK YOU H2O man 
Basically it's:
Clinton --I support clean water in Flint --but not gonna do anything about fracking
Sanders --I support clean water in Flint, no fracking
this year and a few months previous.
This one is in addition to my sigline, just in case:
Another great, thoughtful OP btw. Your writing is a treasure on DU and much appreciated.
You are often the wellspring for people in the desert when they are dying of thirst. You offer inspiration in a time when everything is so fraught with problems that one wants to give it all up. Or to be crude: "So F'D Up!
Keep on...Keeping On!
if he wins the Presidency. I just listened to the town hall meeting on Fox. After boycotting that network for 15 years, since the 2000 election, I broke that boycott to listen to Bernie Sanders speak. I believe if he wins, this Country will take remarkable strides forward in achieving that which we want and need. You know the list, as you have heard him speak. And specifically you know he is against fracking, as should we all be.
The accumulation of wealth should not be the source of one's happiness. It is that sense of well being in knowing that all is right in my world, as well as the world of my children, my neighbors and my fellow human beings across the ocean (and all of our critters) that leads to sustained happiness. And when Senator Sanders in sitting in the Oval Office, we will all have ripples of hope.
And I can't wait to read the threads you write THEN, even though those you give us now are wonderful.
Sam
