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.&quot

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

The frackers have no signed up for their job, consciously thinking, "I can make money by poisoning this community." Their thinking is far more restricted than that. Even the heads of energy corporations are not focused on poisoning a community. They, too, have restricted thought-processes, that involve digits on a computer indicating profit, rather than human being. Hence, they are not immoral in the sense of a terrorist attempting to make a statement by killing people. Rather, they are amoral, unconscious human beings.

Both can be cruel.

That dynamic you note in your last paragraph -- about state government excluding local rule -- is so important. It played a huge role in Flint, as well.

... but for the really big ones, the institutional ones, only indifference or real maliciousness can serve. In "business" cruelties, maliciousness has no part, but in some institutional ones (Jim Crow laws, e.g.), one will find maliciousness at the root. (Malice and fear, or malice as a consequence of fear)

The reason I'd say that is that it is possible to be ignorant on what one might call a retail basis, but on a larger scale, too much information is available to claim ignorance. It's difficult to see how hundreds or thousands could be abused, without some notice of the abuse being given, but of course there might be willful ignorance. I think that is just another variant of indifference, however. It doesn't sound so bad, though: "I didn't know" is so much nicer than "I don't care."

-- Mal

have no way of connecting the dots...in the internet age of "Disconnect" where we connect in ways that are Social Media but aren't really part of a Whole? Or, are we creating something new? But, it all just hasn't jelled yet to give us the power we seek when there is so little coordination around a common theme that works for the majority...whatever that is?

Maybe it will work for the future ..but, for now, we scrabble around still trying with our "old ways" of what we knew that worked in the past..but, not for the Future of those behind us who create their own way?

Trying to be positive here.

Let us raise our voices together for many, many more ripples.

SO very well said.

I salute you and your considerable intelligence.

K&R

When I read your contributions here on DU, I'm reminded of something that Paul's cousin, the late Tadodaho Leon Shenandoah used to say: the greatest strength is gentleness. You are a influence here that always keeps us stable. I'm really proud to be on the same team with you!

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

I particularly enjoyed Bernie citing the republican debates as evidence that we need to invest more in mental health. It was hilarious, and also pointed out one of the unspoken realities of the day .....that violence in the US isn't really rooted in major mental illnesses. Those people are far more likely to be the victim of violence, than to commit a violent act. Rather, it is being caused by individual's that our society deems "stable," but who have raging personality disorders. And they are all too aggressive these days.

I am thinking of things like Cruz ranting about making the sand glow by bombing communities. That is sick. And dangerous.

Cruz has definitely went off the deep end and is a major danger to world peace but if anyone ever fit the bill of megalomaniac, that would be Trump.

If either make it to the White House, I believe we're in deep doo.

She did dance on her answer. (paraphrasing) "I'm against it if this or that, etc."
She left herself obvious wiggle room--a very calculated response.
Bernie just said NO.

... as per some comments I have seen.

-- Mal

You make an extremely important point: a person does not require "wiggle room" when they are simply telling the truth.

Much appreciated.

This is a crucial difference. I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton would not 'evolve' on this issue as it suited her donor owners at her/their convenience.

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

I think that segment of the debate was the most important of the night. And it surely provided us with information to use in our efforts to nominate Bernie Sanders. It's the type of thing that people can easily understand -- hence, the opposition's effort to cloud it, and distract attention.

Hillary is NOT credible on the subject of alternative energy.

These most important issues, which overlap with one another, provide ample reason to support Bernie Sanders. And they will, if Clinton is our party's nominee, make a republican victory very likely.

Please don't ever stop dispensing your wisdom!

You are so nice!

Any wisdom I may have doesn't belong to me -- it would be things that others have shared with me along the way. I'm happy to share that information with others. Still, I really do appreciate your kindness.

This is definitely the most important election of our lifetimes'. And it offers the best choice that there's been since the 1968 Democratic primary, in my opinion.

How different it could have been with McGovern winning that election.
It may be over the top to say that this election is for the future of our world, but that's what's at stake.
There's revolution in the air around the world against corporations.
Bernie and I are the same age and have been fighting the same battles, you might say that we went to different schools together and see the need for radical change, we have been going down the wrong road for way to long.
I urge all of us to speak out in public often
Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

McGovern did consider serving as a substitute for RFK after he was murdered in '68. The machine was not going to allow RFK to serve this nation as president. But Humphrey, who didn't enter any primaries, was selected by the establishment as our nominee.

George could have won in '72, when he was our candidate, but for two related factors. First, the Democratic establishment was looking to regain the power of the Kennedy Democrats -- who took control in 1960, despite the establishment's attempts to have another candidate as the nominee. LBJ was acceptable to the establishment, until he suffered a sometimes severe, on-going mental breakdown. Then HHH in '68 lost, because he stuck with LBJ's Vietnam policy for too long. But what they were doing with George McGovern in '72 resulted in his making some errors .....because he was competing against both party's establishment. It was the worst lack of party loyalty of the last century.

And I would love to know how you do it. At this moment we are poised for heaven or hell. Yikes. It's like an election between MLK, and Mussolini. I can't even sit still.

I too am in disbelief to be this far along. But today I didn't feel that optimism, even though I did see Bernie's one word answer juxtaposed to a convoluted, programmed, attempt to distance herself from poison. But now that you have pointed it out, we ARE in a good position. That exchange was dramatic, last night. She cannot distance herself from herself.

And how you weave. That last paragraph is so kind as to almost be sleight of hand.

I think Bernie has to step his dialog. It seems to me that he isn't breaking through the ice. Although, election results prove me wrong, I'm still anxious to see a greater spread in these election results.

Thanks again for a logical dissection of the process.

I did try to select the correct words for communicating my message, including towards the end. I'm glad that you know what I was saying.

(Throughout my carrier in human services, I enjoyed crises response work. For whatever reasons -- I suspect as the result of my experience in over 300 amateur boxing matches -- I never had issues with being nervous. There were a few times I had to disarm fellows who wanted to injure me. But I was good at my job.)

some of their positions when they always point at something else and say "squirrel".

Even here on DU:GDP, only a few of my friends who support Hillary ever respond to my recent OPs. It's not that we aren't friends. They are good people, who think differently than I do. I think that happens for a few reasons.

First, a lot of the communications here have been of a harsh and low nature. No side has a monopoly here. But a lot of people -- including those who support each of the two candidates -- aren't here for scoring debaters' points, or insulting others. And it is not a good sign when good people here don't openly communicate with their friends.

I think part of it is as simple as people not wanting to invest their energies in quarrels that resolve nothing. But I also think there is quite a bit of "group-think" going on. And that results in silence, and/or the resorting to "squirrel" that you so accurately identify.

I try to avoid the Hillary and the Bernie groups. I prefer open discussion. But I am aware that there are some who dislike me, and discourage others from talking to me here. And I am under the impression that this stems from their personal animosity towards me, rather than the quality of discussion that I attempt. Now, I can surely understand, and fully appreciate, the many reasons people dislike me. Still, I try to talk to myself at least twice a day.

is lacking because you do not attack people. Any such attack to me would be dishonest knowing your character.

mt fair share or crude and rude things over the years. (And I meant to.) But I accept that there are some people who just do not like me, with some being rather passionate in their dislike.

this year and a few months previous.

I pity any lost soul that is subjected to both of our disgust!

that she is against "unsafe" fracking and the resultant poisoned water.

Indeed.

No doubt she was for "Clean Coal" too!

It is a misnomer that has been echoed throughout the drilling community.
Look at all the people's water that has been polluted. Look at the earthquakes in Oklahoma. Look at the way that these platforms destroy the landscape.
Sorry, there is NO safe fracking.

This one is in addition to my sigline, just in case:

Everything said on TV is true. Scientifical studies have proven that.

When there were Department of Environmental Conservation hearings all over NY state, they asked for comments. I attended two meetings, and put forth the observation that it was geologically impossible to contain the fracking fluid to within the formation of rocks that were being fracked for gas. Some of it escapes into the water table because of faults that are both created in the existing formation, and existing faults in other formations above the drilling site. These other faults, though many are mapped, are impossible to map the entirety of them. As water always seeks a level, and is poorly contained when under pressure in these circumstances, it shall work its way up to the overlying ground water table. That is where much of our drinking water is found. When water that is infused with these unknown fracking fluids enters that water table, the drinking water is then permanently contaminated.
The retort from the drilling companies is that they use a doubly encased drill bore, encased in concrete all the way down to the fracking area. I assured them that this is insufficient, because this only protects the bore, but does nothing to protect from seepage through these unknown faults in overlying formations.

New York State eventually banned fracking.
I do not know if my statement made any difference, but I feel that it should have. Ask any geologist.

She doesn't have time to evolve a specific response to every objection. Just trust her.

-- Mal

single most important qualification for the presidency can be determined by how the candidate recites the pledge to the flag. All this other stuff is just to confusing.

... or use the pre-fascist method of raising the right arm. I'm sure Mr Trump would prefer the latter.

-- Mal

I also take close notice of the candidate's flag pin. Has it been properly polished ? How can a person possibly have a grasp of international affairs -- one that allows him/her to serve as commander in chief -- if their flag pin is not properly polished? This is a topic, I must note, that only Fox News dares to address.

I remember when NYS governor Hugh Carey (D) said that the PCBs that had forced the Binghamton State Office Building posed no danger. He even offered to drink a glass of PCB-contaminated water to prove how safe they were. Wholesome as mothers' milk, don't you know.....

It was disappointing. I had liked and respected Governor Carey up until that time.

Another great, thoughtful OP btw. Your writing is a treasure on DU and much appreciated.

I'm glad to serve on the same team with you.

Your encouragement is appreciated.

I'm organizing another essay in my mind. I think it might sound "radical" to some. But it's things I believe need to be said.

I hope that you enjoyed my essay.

to you and the good responses, I hope some of the art of discussion with sink in these pages.

There are a heck of a lot of good, sincere, and intelligent people in the DU community, including supporters of Hillary and Bernie. In my years on DU, I can say that I've had the pleasure of participating in fascinating, informative conversations here. But at times, it seems like Democratic presidential primaries are like a ball& chain that damage far too many conversations here.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

(Actually, you'll notice I didn't change a word from the rough draft you sent me. Thanks again!)

If you don't want people to know that you write my best stuff on DU, I'm good with that! (grin)

I've never responded to one of your wonderful pieces but this one moved me. I was born after Bobby Kennedy died but reading the words that opened your post tells me how much I missed, and the heartbreak those who followed him must of felt upon his unnecessary death. I want aspirational leaders like that, and is why I support Bernie.

And you, as you always are, are correct about fracking. All of these extraction industries are an abomination. It's just the newest kid on the block joining tar sands, mountaintop coal removal, gold mining....etc etc etc ad nauseam. I am sick unto death of our brothers and sisters all over the world and our precious planet being collateral damage in the quest for profit. Finally someone running for president in our time is looking at the big picture and not just their next paycheck.

Keep it up H2O man, you are a breath of fresh clean air in our increasingly polluted discourse.

A while back, I did an epidemiological study of the most industrial-polluted town in NYS. My study focused on the village in the township, which has at least 11 toxic industrial waste dumps in or around it. The rates of cancer, etc, are outrageous.

By no coincidence, many of those same toxins used in fracking are the same that the local military industrial plant used, and disposed of.

I've been in touch with a publisher; they found me an agent. Anyhow, I had some issues arise that slowed me down. But I'm back on track now.

Among the things I will include in the book are documents from the energy corporations, in which they openly discuss how to lie to the public. Of course, they didn't anticipate these seeing the light of day. But they are going to. Soon. Very soon.

We need more of that now. We know so much of what is being done to us but nothing changes nobody is arrested and more die. That needs to stop! I look forward to reading your future writings.

Many people have hesitated to put themselves on the line in recent decades. I'm not saying that in a negative way, about those people, because people do feel overwhelmed. And even frightened.

But we are now experiencing a growing awareness -- based in part on some great journalists, and on the information highway -- and people have learned from past efforts.

You are, of course, absolutely correct about the level of dedication it will take.

Thank you.

We are such a violent society and, in so many ways, uncaring, bowing to the almighty dollar. Fracking is violence on another scale, doing untold and continuing damage to air, ground, water, communities and individuals. There is no reversing the damage, once done. As a society, we don't seem to think of future generations and what impact they will realize from our short sightedness. I am often astounded by Republican stands on issues that will impact everyone, including their children and grandchildren going forward. It's as though they think their wealth will make them immune from polluted air and water and they'll be able to avoid rising seas.

I grew up in upstate NY and wonder if the military industrial plant you mention is Fort Drum. As a child, I watched troops rumble through our small downtown on their way to Fort Drum. Then, as a naive thirteen year old, it was exciting to see. Of course, no more! Please let us all know when your book is available. I'm glad you're back on track. Yours is an invaluable voice.

is spending a fortune to convince us that fracking is our well regulated friend. They've bought the media and most of the politicians, but people are still asking pesky questions. I was afraid, given the relentless pro fracking propaganda, Bernie would have a hard time here. He won big! So proud of my fellow Colorado Democrats.

This is a great post. I enjoyed that debate too and learned a lot from it.

We've had an on-going fight to preserve our environment here, too. The opposition refuses to accept defeat. We need to deal with them on both the local and national level, because they are like a miserable sore throat ....if we don't take all the antibiotics as prescribed, because we start feeling better, it just comes back.

I'm glad you like the OP/thread. I enjoy and appreciate all of your contributions to this forum.

Thanks!!

and far too much imo, which is why Bernie should be the preference for any and all lefties

I have many of those same concerns ....I do about almost every politician. But I know that Bernie is an exception. He is an honest politician.

I still have concerns over Bernie, but not that I have to concern myself with his honesty. And the ground we share is far larger than that we'll ever contest.

I'm probably on the left of him on some things, like if his vote on the Afghan War has an ideological component to it.

AS we know that kinda stuff -- foreign policy generally -- is the only place we see bipartisanship aplenty.

That's the only hole in his game for me, and I would like to hear more. From what I think I understand and feel so far, it's highly likely that he'll be light years ahead of any of the competition on any and all matters that impinge upon war and peace -- and I'm fully prepared to give him the bizness should he disappoint me...lol

For this most important issue! Now if Jerry Brown could just reverse his decision on fracking in our earthquake prone state...

I know that we have a lot to do in order to complete the transition to safe energy. But some of the risks that people -- politicians and corporate executives -- are eager to make with other people's lives and well-being, is just wrong.

... let's stipulate, for the present, that there is an ongoing energy crisis that is generally unknown because it is kept out of the media. The fact that we are maintaining high levels of energy output despite the rising difficulty of extraction supports this idea (as the supply of easily-extracted materials runs out, we switch to materials that are harder and harder to extract profitably, as with tar sands and fracking).

Now, let us also stipulate that yeah, switching to alternative energy sources is both time-consuming and requires much labor. But the same applies to using marginal extraction techniques. Fracking has been with us since the 1940s, but has only exploded relatively recently due to the closing off of other options.

It is ridiculous to suggest that a major energy company has neither the resources nor the expertise to change production methods to one that is efficient and safe, and yet when push came to shove, they preferred to promote an ancient and marginal and unsafe extraction method instead. One wonders why. I'd like to see a good cost/benefit balance sheet on what the bottom line difference is to shifting to non-extractive production methods, rather than extractive ones. Sure, an energy company has more experience with the latter, but I wonder just how much the changeover would have damaged their bottom lines, if they had chosen to make it.

It's still amazingly short-sighted, because not only are extractive methods dirty, unsafe, and poison the environment and the people, they are ultimately finite. Once they run out, what next? Do the technologists think that we will continue to improve the cost-effectiveness of the old methods enough to stave off the crisis? At what point do the diminishing returns diminish to nothing? Well, clearly beyond the tenures of the executives making the decisions, which is likely all they care about. It might be of concern to one who takes a longer-term view of the situation, though: as a statesman should.

-- Mal

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

Difficult as it is, to watch Fox, sometimes it needs to be done. It can be good for a number of reasons -- and obviously watching the town hall is the best example. But it can also be useful to examine both how the enemy thinks, and how they hoodwink a segment of the public. Thus, I will admit to having a series of books by disgraced former president Richard Nixon. It just sounds wrong, I know. But I've picked them up at local public library book sales.

39 people and me bought the first round! It was years ago, of course, and I have forgotten most of what I read. I think the second edition came a very long time after that and sold a larger volume of copies.

I bought the book for my father, who was a staunch Republican. Even though Nixon resigned in disgrace, I thought my father would still be interested in the book. He never read it. When he passed, my step-mother gave the book back to me.

I read the book because I was interested in knowing how he opened up trade with China. The first 40 pages dealt with his relationship with his mother. Drove me crazy. But she instilled in him the idea "never give up." And he never did. The ghost of Richard Nixon is probably roaming the halls of the White House now after hours....

Sam

Terribly boring book, that, by the way. I know what you mean: I even read The Whitewash Years (you know, Kissenger's book), because I try to understand the viewpoint of others, even when it is far from my own. You can't use their own logic against them, if you don't know what it is. (Unfortunately, it rarely helps to use their own logic against them anyway)

-- Mal

Many years ago, I did look through parts of it. But I found it tedious reading, at best.

Perhaps the most valuable book in my library that deals with -- among other -- Hitler, is one of Erich Fromm's most important works. It deals with authoritarian personalities, with emphasis on those who get off on cruelty. It also examines the social conditions that can allow for such a being to rise to power. Certainly, the lessons from that book apply to today's society.

I just posted my daily DU:GDP essay. Glad to see this one is still going!

And for your thoughtful post, as always.

I so much wanted Hillary Clinton to be a Champion of The People who speaks truth to power, but her personal political ambition has led her to be co-opted by The Powers That Be. All too often she must twist the truth in order to cloak her true colors. This is quite evident by examining the history of her rhetoric and comparing it to what is known.

Bernie Sanders is not my ideal candidate, but he is someone I can enthusiastically vote FOR.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will be voting AGAINST whoever emerges from the Republican cesspool.