Why Bernie Sanders can win.

First two paragraphs:

Recently there has been a lot of debate about whether Bernie Sanders can win the presidency. Beginning right around the time he started campaigning a number of articles have appeared in which the viability of his candidacy has been defended and, in my view, much that has been said in these articles is basically correct. In the past few weeks, however, the most noteworthy contributions to this debate have been articles in which it has been argued that Sanders cannot win. These include a July 8 article by New York Times columnist Nate Cohn in which Cohn argues that Sanders current momentum is not "built to last" and a July 22 article by former Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank in which Frank argues that progressives who support Sanders are guilty of "wishful thinking".

The Cohn and the Frank articles are thoughtful and they are worthwhile reading for anyone who is interested in the Democratic primary process. However, the conclusions that Cohn and Frank argue for are wrong: It is not true that Sanders momentum is not "built to last", nor is it true that those who support him are guilty of "wishful thinking". And the problem, it seems to me, is that Cohn and Frank both fail to take into consideration crucial facts about Sanders (and his message) that have the potential to be game changing.

http://wescammenga.com/2015/08/02/why-bernie-sanders-can-win/

What's so wrong with torture? A defense of John McCain's view

A concise discussion of why torture is something we should never accept.

So why is it that torture is wrong in the first place? As a first approximation we can say that it is wrong because it is cruel and inhumane, but without further clarification the conclusion that it is never acceptable does not follow from this. Why doesn’t it follow? Because there are various scenarios – which I am not going to go through the pointless exercise of trying to dream up – in which torturing someone in possession of critical information might be the only way to stop some impending slaughter. In this kind of a situation it looks as though we may face a dilemma with the following structure: On the one hand we can accept the fact that a lot of people are about to die or, on the other hand, we can torture the hypothetical detainee and (if things go well) we may be able to stop this from happening.

The kind of scenario I have just sketched – let’s call it a ‘Doomsday Scenario’ – is clearly conceivable and I admit that we should face up to this. Nevertheless, my view is that – even in such a scenario – there is no dilemma. Why not? Because there is a more serious and more definitive criticism to be laid at the feet of torture then just that it is cruel and inhumane. What is most fundamentally wrong with torture is that when we engage in it we cross a line and express contempt for the victim, for ourselves, and for humanity in general. This is what John McCain is getting at when he says “It’s not about them. It’s about us — what we were, what we are, and what we should be. And [what we should be] is a nation that does not engage in these kinds of fundamental violations of the fundamental, basic human rights that we guaranteed when we declared our independence.”

Hey how's it going?

I've only been on here a few days but I've already gotten linked to a bunch of worthwhile reads. Looking forward to more of the same!