As long anticipated, Bernie Sanders speaks at length about "democratic socialism." It's a good speech, and "(b)y the way, almost everything (FDR) proposed was called 'socialist'" needs to be said a lot more these days. But though he repeatedly invokes FDR, Mr. Sanders also misses the opportunity Eric Foner described in October -- the opportunity to remind Americans of the deep vein of historical progressivism (William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Populists and Progressives) that has helped make Americans freer. I also suspect the "liberal" media would rather cover the latest nativist filth emanating from Republican word-holes than they would Mr. Sanders's speech, which admittedly demands more of viewers than snark and sound bites do.
Fox News blowhard asks Iraq war vet/Democratic House Rep if he will "take responsibility if a refugee kills an American." Why do Democrats lose? Because they do not answer such questions in the most direct and obvious way, which is, in this case, no, because murderers are responsible for murder and terrorists are responsible for terror. Too many folks still think you always blame the wrong people! is a complaint you can only make against liberals.
Ex-CIA director James Woolsey says Edward Snowden should be tried and convicted for treason for his role in the Paris attacks. And then goes on to describe, at length, the numerous times Mr. Snowden wired money or shipped arms to ISIS, sheltered ISIS fighters from their pursuers, and developed the strategies ISIS used to kill innocent folks! I kid, of course -- for Mr. Woolsey, as for all emotional cripples, "treason" is just a word you use to hurt people who embarrass you, and certainly not a specific crime actually detailed in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Speaking of Mr. Snowden, Micah Lee interviews him in re maintaining your privacy on the internet during These Interesting Times. It's full of good tips, but why should the average non-activist care? "Because," Mr. Snowden says, "when you think about who the victims of surveillance are, on a day-to-day basis, you’re thinking about people who are in abusive spousal relationships, you’re thinking about people who are concerned about stalkers, you’re thinking about children who are concerned about their parents overhearing things." The last example is the weakest (under ideal circumstances, at least, parents should know what's going on with their kids), but I welcome the perspective.
I'll admit that my heart soared upon reading this "liberal" media column about health care entitled "The Country's Largest Private Health Insurer Throws a 'Tantrum' Over Lower Profits." "Tantrum" is exactly the word we ought to use, over and over again, when describing the pronouncements of worshipers of mammon. In this case, it's United Health Care saying it could pull out of the federal health care exchange because profits may not match the $1.6 billion it made in just the third quarter of 2015. Billion! In profits! Yup, that's a tantrum all right. I'm not that terribly invested in ensuring big corporate participation in the Affordable Care Act health care exchanges, though -- I'm more invested in Medicare-for-all.
Finally, Laura Mallonee, writing at Wired, describes the rise of female taxi cab drivers in India. Why is it happening? Because it's not necessarily safe for a woman to get a cab with a male driver, and because, well, why shouldn't it? Because of the "big taboo to see a women with that kind of responsibility, freedom, and mobility"? That's the kind of "big taboo" that good citizens all over the world fight to destroy every day, and the sooner women in India succeed in doing so, the better.