For context, look up popular American news articles for March 12th, 2016.
Raja Yoga (the Hindu philosophy of using physical movement to achieve a higher spiritual state–called simply “yoga” by most westerners) seems to have arisen out of a collection of movements and postures practiced as part of human life. From bowing to a king, to taking a wide stance in preparation for delivering a sword blow, to stretching in the morning and evening to alleviate muscle and joint pain, to picking up a baby–this is a system of kinetic learning intended to explain and teach the human condition and how to function within it.
Humans are loving. Humans are powerful. Humans fight for survival, spend their days gathering resources; humans follow leaders; humans battle for control over the followers and means of acquisition. (Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably seeing you as their follower…) This method of teaching translates literally to “royal yoga”. As profound as it once was, it fails to teach apt governance or understanding in the absence of the cultural understanding that could only be truly had in the more revered and wealthy circles of the ancient world.
What would such a system look like, if it were created out of the successful strategies of governing and being governed within our own society? Are there any motions that we can still use to universally increase our usefulness and success as a part of the human meta-organism? Today, we crave a method that works for almost everyone, and mourn the absence of any such thing that can make us happy. There is currently no “one size fits most” method for anyone born after 1980, or, perhaps, before.
In politics and religion, alike, we are bereft of truly effective guidance. We celebrate the death of “storge” love while complaining about lack of agreement in public matters. (This is a contradiction.) We seek ancient wisdom that hardly translates to how to make a real living, today. We are amply taught, in school, church, home, and in casual society everything but what is known to be truly, universally effective–because nobody knows of any universally “human” means of survival that has, itself, survived the test of time.
In the last decade, much of the world has awoken to this predicament, and we are fighting each other because nobody can figure out how to make things work, again. The information age arose out from Pandora’s box, and our greatest minds have yet to tame it in a way that lets everyone live happily, who is willing to keep trying.
Or maybe that is the nature of the human condition: as the Buddhists say, “suffering exists”, and it’s up to us to figure out how to deal with that.
It is a part of human nature to fight. We committed genocide against every human species that came before us, until only Homo sapiens remained. (A chilling thought, but true, according to archeologists, evolutionary biologists, and anthropologists.) A new way of living will one day emerge out of the ashes of analog society and the minds of those who, like Homo erectus, failed to adapt (despite having a larger brain). In the mean time, let’s limit our battles to the ones that actually matter.
If an idiot or a fool gets elected president, let them show us how not to do things.
Some arguments can only be won by letting your opponent win, and then realize, on his own, that he should have been wiling to compromise (A.K.A. “adapt”). We decided in the late 40s that killing all the stupid people is wrong, so if such people end up running things, and we don’t crash and burn because of it, we will have proven that the antiquated morals of centuries past–survival of the fittest, when you boil it down enough–are truly not as good as the softer ones we revere, today.
And if letting stupid people self-actualize turns out to be a problem, we can always decide that Hitler had the right of things and commit genocide until all the stupid people are extinct, and we evolve into a species that’s better than Homo sapiens. (Personally, I don’t advocate this method.)
Seriously, folks, don’t get into physical fights over political beliefs unless you think we should silence, cage, and eventually extinct all the imbuciles–including, possibly, you.
Trump and Sanders fans, I’m looking at you.
“However, a much older Near Eastern origin is suggested by a near equivalent in the 6th century BC Proverbs of Ahiqar: ‘a sparrow in thy hand is better than a thousand sparrows flying’.”
I love finding proverbs that have somehow survived 25 centuries of linguistic translations and societal changes. Such proverbs are almost certainly somewhat accurate (in the right context), because the only way people would keep saying them for 2,500 years is if they feel like they have a decent reason to do so, themselves, and to teach their children to say them, too.
At one time or another, we’ve all looked at a food package to determine whether a food is “healthy” or not, according to the nutritional doctrines of the day. Often, the first (and perhaps only) thing that someone looks at on such a label is how many calories a food product contains per serving. But what are calories? Are they good or bad for us?
A calorie is a scientific unit of energy
What food packages label as “calories” are actually “kilocalories”, or a unit that equals 1,000 calories. In chemistry (and other sciences), a single calorie is the amount of energy it takes to heat one milliliter of water one degree Celsius. Wait…huh?
Momentarily setting aside the discrepancy in naming conventions, let’s paint a mental picture of what this “calorie” actually does.
Think of a centimeter. A centimeter is about 1/3 of an inch. Now, think of a square that’s 1cm on each side. That’s a square centimeter because each side is equal, and all four sides are 1cm long. To get the area of a square, you multiply the length–1cm–by the width–1cm–and get…you guessed it: 1 square centimeter (a unit of area). Now, think of that same square and make it three-dimensional. It’s now 1cm wide, by 1cm long, by 1cm tall. That’s a cubic centimeter or “1cc”. 1cc equals 1 milliliter (1ml).
So, let’s take that 1ml (1cc) cube and fill it up with pure water. Next, we’ll put a tiny amount of fuel under it and light it on fire, then wait for the temperature of the water to go up by one degree Celsius. The moment it has done so, we put out the fire. How much of that heat energy just went into the water? Exactly one calorie. How do we know? Because by definition, 1cal is how much heat energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1ml of water by exactly 1 degree Celsius. See? We’ve just used a single calorie to heat water. How scientific!
As it so happens, 1cc [1ml] of water weighs exactly one gram. Isn’t the metric system neat?
Alright, I see that you’re wanting to know how this has anything to do with food. The neat thing about a unit of energy (a calorie, for example) is that it doesn’t just measure heat energy. It also measures kinetic energy, positional energy, nuclear energy, and–what we care about, right now–chemical energy. The amount of chemical energy that our bodies can extract from a morsel of food is what is being measured and written down on the food label. More properly, this is chemical potential energy: energy that’s stored in chemical bonds that can be re-arranged to make heat, movement, and other fun stuff happen.
Why, then, does the label use kilocalories instead of calories as its unit of measurement? Creatures with over 15 trillion cells in our bodies, each of which need energy to survive, we need a great deal of energy to keep living. So, any meaningful measure of nutritional energy will have to be in the thousands. 1,000 calories (“small calories”) = 1 “large calorie” or kilocalorie, which means that we don’t have to put a whole bunch of zeroes at the end of every “calories per serving” number on a cereal box. That saves space and is easier to read.
Why do we need chemical energy to live? Because without it, our cells would be rendered immobile–unable to respirate, unable to repair themselves, unable to move oxygen and water around, etc. When our cells stop moving, we’re dead. The tricky thing is that we can’t just pump heat into our bodies and have our cells magically turn that into energy; our cells are combustion reactors, not very unlike the engine of a car.
Yes, you read that right. An automobile takes chemical energy from molecules called hydrocarbons and breaks the chemical bonds to release energy. How does a car do that? First, it takes a bit of energy to get the process started. This is called activation energy. The battery sends a jolt through the system (with the help of the starter, spark plugs, etc.) that lights vaporized gasoline on fire. That little explosion makes the pistons move, which cause the wheels to spin, and also gives parts of the engine enough kinetic energy to fill the reaction chambers with gasoline and light it on fire. This produces a chain reaction, because each little reaction makes another reaction happen (until you break the “chain” by cutting power to the ignition process–A.K.A. “turning it off”).
Our cells do basically the same thing. We have a chain reaction already happening inside each and every one of our cells since the moment of conception. Our mother’s womb feeds those cells chemical energy in the form of sugar and other things–all of which are hydrocarbons–and that lets our cells keep going while having enough energy left over to make more cells. Eventually, we get big enough to survive on our own, and voila! we are born! Every day, we put more food into our bodies because that food is made up of hydrocarbons that our body knows how to break down. We have enzymes, symbiotic microbes, digestive juices, and other things that let our bodies disassemble a wide variety of chemicals and turn them into the stuff that our cells run off of.
In fact, the chain reaction that keeps us alive is part of the same chain reaction that started life on this planet! Think about that for a moment. If, at any point between the creation of the first primitive lifeform and when we were born, that chain reaction had completely stopped, our mothers would have passed away before giving birth to us. Isn’t that remarkable?
If cars use gasoline for fuel, what do our cells use?
Short answer: a simple sugar called glucose. Most single-celled organisms love sugar because it’s the easiest thing to light on fire and get energy from. In human cells, we have a little cell-within-a-cell called a mitochondria that does the hard work of lighting stuff on fire without making us explode and die. Our cells take in glucose, burn it with oxygen, and use the energy that produces to turn a low-energy chemical (adenosine diphosphate) into a high-energy chemical (adenosine triphosphate), which then goes around and deals smaller, safer amounts of chemical energy to its “customers” in other parts of the cell. That lets the cell move around and do its job for the rest of the body–whether that be passing around oxygen (red blood cells), killing invaders (white blood cells), contributing to larger movement (cells that are part of muscle tissue), storing energy for later (fat cells), and whatever else our bodies need to do.
The average adult requires 2,000 kilocalories of digestible chemical energy per day to avoid cell death
It’s true: if we don’t get enough calories, our cells die. We need about 2,000,000 calories (2,000 kilocalories) per day to make sure that, at the end of the day, we still have the same number of cells that we started with. Of course, if we spend a lot of energy on exercise, we need more than that to maintain the same number of cells; and if we don’t get much exercise, we’re spending less energy, and don’t need to eat as much chemical energy to keep us going. If we want to lose weight, that means that we’re actively trying to make some of our excess cells die by not feeding them enough. When cells are in distress, they release lots of chemicals that tell our brains (comprised of nerve cells) and other parts of our bodies that something is very wrong. In other words, it hurts. This can manifest in tiredness, moodiness, etc. Our bodies are built to gather more energy and make more cells, not to lose energy and have cells die.
Up until the last 100 years or so, this wasn’t an issue because we didn’t have reliable food supplies, and therefore had very little capacity to overeat. Food was too scarce, too expensive, and required us to spend a lot of energy to get it. That kept us skinny. Now, our food supplies are pretty awesome, and starvation is basically gone in the USA. (Yes, it still happens, but almost never on the grand scale, which may be the most remarkable achievement in our species’ survivability, ever.) We can now sit at a desk all day, spending almost none of our stores of chemical energy, and still have cupboards and refrigerators stocked full of food! We eat because our bodies tell us it’s “time”, and if we get a little too much, our bodies say, “That’s great! We won’t starve, now!”
Evolution is a little behind the times–and that’s why we get fat: our bodies are telling us to eat as much as we can so we don’t die of hunger, but we have so much food available that we can literally kill ourselves by eating too much. From a biological standpoint, that’s a very good thing…mostly.
So, to finally answer the question in the title: we will die if we don’t get enough calories, and that’s why we eat them. We read labels and diet because, for the first time in human history, literally billions of people have the unique problem of being so wealthy, in terms of food availability, that we can eat ourselves to death. How many calories are too many? That depends on your body’s size (how many cells you’re currently maintaining); the amount of chemical energy you’re spending on a daily basis (A.K.A. “exercise”); whether you want to gain weight, lose weight, or stay the same weight; and the unique quirks of your particular body’s metabolic process. (Each person manages their chemical energy slightly differently, and as a result, some people can seem to “eat anything and stay slim”, while others can’t.)
Fun fact:The kinds of cells that die first are somewhat dependent on what you’re (not) eating. Your brain and nerves love fat. Your muscles love protein. Everything loves carbohydrates (simple and complex sugars like glucose, fructose, sucrose, and starch–which is made of glucose and/or fructose). Every diet has a trade-off. Don’t believe anyone who tells you that a diet is risk-free.
The important thing to remember is this: (calories in) – (calories out) = (net gain or loss). If the net gain or loss is 0, then you’ll stay the same weight. More means you’ll gain weight, and less means you’ll lose weight.
Finally, please be aware that our bodies need things that aren’t caloric (don’t contain chemical energy that our bodies can burn) like minerals (iron, magnesium, etc.), vitamins, amino acids (what proteins are made of), and so on. The only way you’re going to get everything you need is by consuming the right amount of calories (not too little or too much) from a wide variety of sources that also contain other stuff that you need. If you eat nothing but starch, fat, and sugar, you’re going to get very sick, indeed. Follow the age-old wisdom of eating a little bit of everything in moderation and not being too picky.
This assumes you’ve already used “blkid”, “fdisk -l”, etc. to determine which drive is which. All of these commands require root.
N = (number of partitions * 128) + 1024
The drive in question has 4 partitions, so N=1536
In this example, I’m using an eMMC drive: /dev/mmcblk0
Each partition appends “p<number>” after mmcblk0, such as “/dev/mmcblk0p1”
If you’re using a normal hard drive or USB drive as your source, it will show up as /dev/sd<letter><partition number>
My storage drive is mounted at /mnt/
Because one of the drives involved (storage drive) is connected via USB, it’s important to sync between transfers. I find that using the “sync” mount option slows things down more than syncing manually.
First, backup the partition table:
dd if=/dev/mmcblk0 of=/mnt/mmcblk0.img bs=1 count=1536 && sync
(Note: the output filename is arbitrary.)
Next, back up each partition, syncing between transfers:
dd if=/dev/mmcblk0p1 of=/mnt/mmcblk0p1.img bs=4096 && sync && dd if=/dev/mmcblk0p2 of=/mnt/mmcblk0p2.img bs=4096 && sync && dd if=/dev/mmcblk0p3 of=/mnt/mmcblk0p3.img bs=4096 && sync && dd if=/dev/mmcblk0p4 of=/mnt/mmcblk0p4.img bs=4096 && sync
(Note 1: “bs=4096” sets “block size” to 4KiB, which speeds up the transfer. Default is “bs=512”, which works, but more slowly.)
(Note 2: each “&&” tells the shell to only execute the command that comes next if the previous command worked. This can also be accomplished with scripting, loops, etc.)
When you’re done, you should have a set of files representing the partition table and all the partitions. They will be as big as the source data, so you may want to compress it with gzip or similar. (This can be done with a pipe, but it might introduce a point of failure, so I don’t recommend it.) To restore the data, first restore the partition table:
dd of=/dev/mmcblk0 if=/mnt/mmcblk0.img bs=1 count=1536 && sync && partprobe
(Note: I switched “if” with “of”, and added “&& partprobe” at the end.)
Then, restore each partition with the same command you used to create the backups, but swapping “if” and “of” after each instance of the string, “dd”:
dd of=/dev/mmcblk0p1 if=/mnt/mmcblk0p1.img bs=4096 && sync && dd of=/dev/mmcblk0p2 if=/mnt/mmcblk0p2.img bs=4096 && sync && dd of=/dev/mmcblk0p3 if=/mnt/mmcblk0p3.img bs=4096 && sync && dd of=/dev/mmcblk0p4 if=/mnt/mmcblk0p4.img bs=4096 && sync && partprobe
(Note: the “&& partprobe” at the end may not be totally necessary. You may, however, have to reboot/replug the drives, regardless, at some point, to get the drive geometry to be properly refreshed in the OS.)
If, at any point, you run into errors, try removing “bs=4096” from each command that has it. It will make the transfers slower, but more reliable.
Want to check the progress of a dd operation? You can do this by sending dd the “USR1” signal. If you have only one instance of dd going, you can simply do the following:
killall -USR1 dd
This will cause all dd commands to output–in their own terminals–their current status. If you have multiple dd commands running, and only want to get a progress report from one of them, you can do this:
ps -A | grep dd (Note the number to the left of the "dd" entry.) kill -s USR1 <number>
Finally, if you want to periodically check on a dd command without having to keep typing or hitting ENTER, you can do the following. In this example, “<command>” refers to either “kill -s USR1 <number>” or “killall -USR1 dd”. Note that reporting progress uses more clock cycles than one would think, so it’s best to do so only once every few minutes. This example checks once every 3 minutes.
while `true` ; do <command> ; sleep 180 ; done
(Note that the marks around “true” are backticks, not single quotes. On a typical QWERTY keyboard, these are to the left of the “1” key, on the same button as “~”.)
You can press CTRL-C in the appropriate terminal to stop any of the above commands.
A.K.A. “You heard it here, first!”
This started off as a Facebook post, about a week ago. Many of the people who replied to the original post are of a liberal persuasion, and some took umbrage to my assertion that Sanders isn’t as intelligent as some of the other candidates. The second half of this essay is a response to those objections. As with all my posts, I take no offense at being disagreed with, but do request that any disagreements be presented respectfully and intelligently.
As a self-described centrist, I’ve watched the most recent Republican and Democratic presidential primary debates. I’ve noticed some striking differences that have influenced my opinion substantially, at this juncture.
1) Right or wrong in her policies, Hillary Clinton is the most intelligent person in the running.
2) Sanders is the only one who seems to care about or understand the major concerns of the millennial generation. He is, however, extremely vague (compared to Clinton) about how to fund any of the changes he wants.
3) The Republican candidates disagree with each other a lot less, but they don’t go into as much detail about their positions, or how they intend to accomplish their goals.
4) The Democratic debate facilitators ask much harder questions. Their candidates often dodge the question, but have stayed on topic better than in past elections. Republican debate facilitators ask much easier questions, and their candidates don’t dodge them as often.
5) The Democratic candidates put more focus on how they intend to do things, and are more specific about what they intend to do. The Republican candidates focus more on who they’re angry at.
6) Governor O’Malley makes much more concise, salient remarks, and asks harder, more intelligent questions than the facilitators or other candidates. He seems to lack the assertiveness to lead effectively at the presidential level, but he adds much to the election by way of keeping the other candidates honest.
7) Sanders and Trump are more childish than the other candidates, in their mannerisms and speech patterns. Trump is extremely so, to the point that I wonder if he suffers from a neoteny-related disorder.
8) Bush made more sense than any other Republican candidate, and seems to have some understanding that issues that have yet to be solved are unsolved because they’re complex and are trade-off centric. Clinton has a much better apparent understanding of this than any of the other candidates, including Bush, although Bush may be catering his responses to the less detail-oriented format of the Republican debates.
9) Sanders and O’Malley seem to be the least corrupt, in terms of taking money from special interests.
10) Sanders and Clinton get almost all the attention, and are rude to O’Malley when he tries to speak.
11) Trump really is an idiot. He has basically no understanding of politics, diplomacy, foreign affairs, economics, the economics of immigration, etc. (Research early 20th century immigration and it’s effects, if you don’t believe me.)
12) Sanders is also pretty stupid, but he has a handful of ideas that could basically save my generation if he implements them with sufficient foresight (which he may or may not possess). If elected, he would screw a lot of stuff up, but maybe fix the things that most need fixing. He also doesn’t understand foreign relations, many aspects of economics, diplomacy, etc. In other words, a vote for him is a vote for sacrificing a lot of things that (mostly) work in favor of fixing a few things that are severely broken–if he’s clever enough to pull it off, which is worth questioning.
13) Clinton would hold down the fort with stunningly apt alacrity, but not seriously work on our country’s most severe domestic problems. She would make small, incremental improvements, and do a darned good job of that…slowly. Under her rulership, we should expect small, consistent improvements across the board (barring unforeseen circumstances). She has foresight, leadership ability, and genius-level I.Q. She’s one of the greatest diplomats alive. What she lacks is out-of-the-box thinking on some pressing issues.
14) I’m sad to admit that, in spite of my centrism, I can’t see any of the Republican candidates’ proposed solutions as being very sapient or realistic. Sorry, guys: you’re going to lose, this year.
15) Clinton listens intently to each of her opponents and nods appreciatively, apparently to herself, when they say something particularly intelligent. I expect that, like Obama, she’ll ask some of her former opponents to join her cabinet. Sanders is an ideologue who is too busy concentrating on making his next point to listen very well. (Referring to active listening, not hearing loss.) He may or may not have the wisdom to hire his former competitors.
16) Sanders has an annoying demeanor. Those I was watching the debate with (stalwart democrats) kept turning him down because he was a “loud mouth” and a “hot head”, which mostly speaks to his presentation, rather than his ideas. If people can’t stand listening to you, it doesn’t matter how good your ideas are.
In conclusion, either Sanders or Clinton will most likely be our next president. I like what Sanders is trying to do, but his demeanor is unpalatable, and he lacks the intellect to do a good job, on most fronts. He has admirable compassion, but precious little logistical sense, and would end up a lot like Jimmy Carter, in the eyes of history, were he to win. Clinton will probably be our next president, and will almost certainly do a very solid job of it, taking into account the quirks specific to her party (fixation on gun control, LGBT/race/female issues–all of which are sometimes sensible, and often not), and a penchant for small, safe changes, rather than large, riskier ones (some of the latter we seem to need). To put it simply, we are probably in safe hands, this time around, and the big changes will probably have to wait.
“But I like Bernie Sanders, and I think he’s smart!”
“He’s been working for decades to do what he claims to want, so shouldn’t we give him more credit?”
I don’t doubt that Sanders is sincere, or that he’s been working toward his goals for a very long time. He is, indeed, very committed. My concerns about his intellect come from a variety of things about him, most of them small and hard to explain to anyone who hasn’t also noticed it. Here are a few that seem relatively easy to communicate.
1) He stays “on message” a lot more than the other candidates. When asked about gun control, he talked about Wall Street. When asked about digital security and Constitutional concerns, he talked about Wall street, and then, eventually, about terrorists. When asked about racial inequality, he talked about Wall Street. Yes, the financial sector (which is larger than just Wall Street in New York City!) needs to be sat on for the way they have screwed up our economy and some other stuff. Yes, they’re crazy rich, while their employees are just getting poorer. They’re on my “sh*t-list”. They are not, however, the cause of every evil in the world, and changing how we interact with them isn’t going to solve most of our problems. That’s lazy thinking. He’s been on the job for long enough to know better…but he apparently doesn’t.
2) His vocabulary is limited.
3) He’s reactionary in the same way as people I know who have a fanatically-held set of beliefs, but who lack the wherewithal to justify those beliefs saliently to others. He gets upset, raises his voice, interrupts incessantly, gesticulates to get attention, etc. This is another sign of a weak mind.
4) His facial expressions are very limited. This one is a bit harder to explain, but I’ll try. For illustration, watch Trump speak and count how many distinct expressions he has. That’s an approximate number that can be used to extrapolate his range of emotions. People who have only, in the extreme example, “happy” and “sad” make you think of what group of people? According to psychologists, what is the average IQ of people with that kind of disorder? (Down Syndrome sufferers are one example. They have an average I.Q. of 80, whereas “normal” is ~100.) A person without nuanced feelings is probably incapable of understanding partial victories, mitigated defeats, trade-offs, moral gray area, etc.; if they did understand these things, they would have a decidedly more developed range of emotions, which would result in more unique facial expressions. Trump regularly displays fake sadness, sullenness, child-like delight, and anger–and not much else. Now, watch the same length of video and count Sanders’ unique expressions. There aren’t many more. Now, take a look at either of the Clintons (who have approximate IQs of 138 and 140, respectively). Do they look sideways in amusement? Do they smirk, wink, look ponderous, etc? You bet they do. They have also been shown to understand things like partial victories, mitigated defeats, trade-offs, moral gray area, etc. I know this might not make a lot of sense unless you’ve already noticed it, but here’s hoping…
5) He doesn’t seem to know when he has made his point, and people have stopped listening intently.
6) When he was asked whether he was raising taxes on the middle class to pay for universal health care, he prevaricated for over 2 minutes, apparently without realizing that everyone with half a brain cell would see that he was doing so. If you boil it down enough, his answer was, “Yes, I’m raising taxes on the middle class, but the savings from medical costs will be bigger.” For many, including me, this is probably true. However, anyone with a little life experience knows that some people get sick and/or go to the doctor more than others, so for the latter group, the math doesn’t add up. (I go to the doctor more than most people.) Having worked on this problem for several decades, he should know better than to make such a brash assumption, but either he doesn’t know better, or is lying. It’s been previously agreed (by most in the conversation, so far) that he’s genuine; therefore, he’s stupid.
7) As obtuse as Congress is, if he were even a little bit good at explaining his ideas in a way that made other people who knew about the subject matter agree with him, he would have gotten the Democratic Party leadership on-board with his plan, after all this time. Overwhelmingly, his colleagues seem to think of him as being unrealistic. Often, when he seems to have “stumped” his opponent with a response, the expression on the opponent’s face isn’t one of concession or sullen disappointment about being bested in an argument, but of bafflement that he would even say such a thing. How do you deliver a snappy retort to a statement that’s factually incorrect on a dozen different levels? If you think back to a time when someone made such an argument to you, that debate dynamic will become painfully clear. As previously mentioned, he consistently dodged Clinton’s questions about his previous voting record, and likewise refused to explain in any detail how he intended to mitigate the negative side-effects of his proposed changes. Many of the bills he authored are only a couple of pages long, and make no effort to state, in practice, how they are to be accomplished, if made law. Valid questions include: How do you enforce it? What are the specific rules that businesses, individuals, and government agencies must follow, in day-to-day life? Are those people actually able to follow those rules without it putting them out of business or turning everyone into a criminal–technically or judicially, depending on enforcement? A 2-page bill can’t address these concerns, and Sanders repeatedly presents such bills, trying to make them into laws. They are consistently voted down by his peers. (Yes, he has managed to pass a handful of laws in the 25 years since he first got elected to Congress, which means that he occasionally writes a law that his colleagues don’t think is asinine.) To my understanding, his biggest accomplishments as a member of Congress center around adding a little “heart” to bills that others have written–which makes him a decent Congressman, but doesn’t qualify him for the duty of vetoing poorly-written laws.
I could go on, but this should provide a little justification for my assertions about his intellect. Again, I think he has a few really good ideas; but I doubt that he has much understanding of what the side-effects of those ideas will be. Therefore, I’ll reassert that a vote for Sanders is a vote for sacrificing a lot of things that (mostly) work, in favor of fixing a few things that are badly broken. This comes down to the priorities of an individual voter; but be warned: some of the things he wants to change will make essential goods like food, fuel, clothing, and building supplies more expensive. Will his other ideas counteract this by making you richer? Will you be made richer in a way that doesn’t prevent industrialists from making those goods at a reasonable price? Maybe, if he’s smart enough. Do you care to roll the dice? Vote according to your mind, heart, and conscience.