So many things happened in 2015, it’s hard to catalog in one year-end summation. To a large extent, It was a year defined by crises, including financial distress in Greece and China as well as the Syrian refugee crisis and the rise of ISIL. But before we plunge into the disaster zone, it was also a political year. What better place to start than the US presidential campaigns, now well underway.
Here in Vermont, many were heartened by Bernie Sanders’ strong start and people-powered campaign. It was nice to see someone take on Hillary, even as he gave her a pass on her various scandals (emailgate, Benghazi). There was also the rise of Donald Trump as the Republican frontrunner who can say almost anything and still gain in the polls. Despite the theatrics, politics this year provided a patter of response to the events of 2015, as the real world intruded into the carefully crafted platforms of the various candidates. They were forced to take positions on gun control, foreign affairs, Black Lives Matter, and the global economy, articulated in a string of debates held by both parties. Voters who are paying attention got the chance to hone their own positions against those who would be our leaders over the next several years.
In the domestic sphere, we were all forced to discuss uncomfortable issues involving violence, race and gender. Although I’m sure many would have liked it to go away, Black Lives Matter only grew in strength as police shootings of unarmed people continued amidst greater media scrutiny. There were protests in a number of cities, notably Cleveland and Chicago, while in Baltimore, what was generally described as a street riot broke out during the Freddie Gray protests.
The transgender community declared itself this year and demanded rights, dramatized by Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner’s transformation from man to woman. Later in the year, gay marriage rights were famously challenged in Tennessee when rogue county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples. She was a cause celebre for several weeks, even spending time in jail for violation of a court order, before returning to work on the condition that she not prevent her deputies from granting licenses.
And then there were the mass shootings, at a black church in Charleston, SC (9 people killed), the college shooting in Roseburg, OR (another 9 people killed) and at the abortion clinic in Colorado (3 killed, 9 wounded). This doesn’t include the shootings in San Bernardino, in which another 14 lives were taken. In short, it was a big year for gun violence in the US, but also abroad. Paris experienced its own mass shooting in the attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo in January (12 killed), and again in November as ISIL-affiliated terrorists killed 130 people in one terrible night.
Economically, there were several big stories in 2015 – the Greek debt crisis, the Chinese market crisis, and the Fed’s long awaited rate rise. The Greek default unfolded in the early summer, and imploded dramatically after the new ‘progressive’ Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called for a referendum on staying in the Euro. Greek voters indicated decisively that they were prepared to bow out, but Tsipras did the exact opposite, bringing in the severe austerity plan the Greek voters had sought to avoid.
In the mid and late summer, we had the Chinese market crisis, causing massive disturbance in world markets as everyone tried to figure out what it meant. American markets eventually stabilized after giving up just about all of the year’s gains. (They’ve since recovered although S&P ended slightly down for the year.) Finally, the Fed spent most of the fall hinting back and forth on an increase in the all important federal funds rate, which had been near zero for almost nine years. For a while, the financial press seemed to talk of nothing else (should they, should they not, what horrible things will happen if they do or don’t?). Finally in December they did end up raising rates to a target range of a quarter to a half percent. The world did not end.
The big geopolitical problem of 2015 was ISIL, which easily topped the Iran nuclear deal and America’s squabbles with Russia as the dominant story of the year. It all started with news of the refugee crisis in which thousands of people from Syria and other war torn countries made their way to Europe seeking sanctuary. The US (which, lets face it, has had a lot to do with refugee-creation over the years) showed great reluctance to help their European neighbors even as some countries, including hapless Greece and more prosperous Germany, were flooded. Then, just as things were starting to improve, with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel agreeing to take 800,000 refugees, there were the Paris attacks. Suddenly, it wasn’t just ISIL in the abstract beheading people in Iraq and Syria, but ISIL in your backyard blowing up innocent civilians in cafes and music venues. The incidents in Paris were followed soon after by the attack in San Bernardino, CA, which was soon connected by US authorities with ISIL.
Earlier this fall, the Syria situation was complicated (although some would say favorably, among them the French government) by Russia’s entry into the war against ISIL. While the Russians openly support America’s enemy Syrian President Assad, they are also helping to fight ISIL, raising the question, “Is the enemy of my enemy my friend?” That remains an open question, but ISIL made their position clear by blowing up of a Russian airliner in Egypt.
But there’s more. Environmentally, China, the giant industrial nation with the slowing economy, began to encounter air pollution so bad they actually had to admit it and ask people to stay indoors due to unsafe conditions. Photos of Beijing showed smog so thick it seemed as though a volcano had erupted nearby. But no, it was just factory smoke and vehicle emissions, that had collected over the city and failed to be dispersed by weather. Coincidentally, the nations of the world met in Paris this fall to hammer out a deal on mitigating climate change. They were successful in this regard although some critics say that the toothless agreement is as good as worthless unless people really step up. Still, the Chinese smog crisis made it all seem a bit more urgent and real.
So did the weather, which this year, has El Nino to contend with. 2015 was the warmest year on record once again and Christmas saw Spring-like temps up and down the east coast as cherry blossoms bloomed on the mall in Washington, DC. This was followed by massive rainstorms in the south and midwest, summer-strength tornadoes in Texas, and widespread flooding in Oklahoma, Missouri and other states – all since Christmas!
On a more positive note, Star Wars came out with The Force Awakens, giving us all a chance to live the vicarious thrill of a good clean fight between the forces of good and evil, and raising some interesting questions as the forces of evil our heroes have to contend with happen to be those of the ruling government.
Here on earth, as 2015 draws to a close, our situation is not quite as dire as it is for the denizens of Star Wars. The citizens of our planet still have the opportunity to make choices about the future, which like Star Wars is never really resolved. And that’s why, despite gloomy forecasts and unpleasant news, I feel somewhat hopeful about 2016, which hasn’t unfolded yet and in which anything can still happen.
Happy new year, everyone!
A Brave New Year
Thanks, Lise. That’s quite a summary of the year. Way back I used to name years- the Year of Living on Edge, The Year Everyone Died, The Year That Things Went Right, etc. This year deserves a name. This was The Year of No Recovery Time.
I wish us all a Brave New Year. Make it a good one.
Locally
Lise’s list really jogged the memory. All that last year? Wow.
Locally we had a new Town Manager, the implementation of Pay As You Throw, new land use and zoning laws, retirement of Jerry Carbone at the library, flooding of Putney Rd businesses, bank robberies, NEA grant proposals and decisions, a skatepark heading for ACT 250 amendment consideration…
Bernie gave Hillary a pass on
Bernie gave Hillary a pass on what you refer to as “various scandals” such as Benghazi and emailgate because he knew they were nothing but political ploys from the right designed to thwart her campaign and had no basis in fact. Since he knew there was nothing of substance there, then it wasn’t a matter of him giving her a pass. There was no reason for a pass to be given since there was no “there” there and Bernie deals with truth, not falsehoods. One of Bernie’s strongest points is that he refuses to engage in any sort of discourse that doesn’t have to do with actual policy. He stays on subject and avoids the nonsense. And he recently said that he likes Hillary, in fact he said he respects her, they just disagree about some issues. As quoted in the Guardian ” I’ve known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. Maybe I shouldn’t say this: I like Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton.” And this is one reason why I like and respect Bernie.
I think he gave her a pass
I think he gave her a pass because it has nothing to do with him. He’s not looking into her personal server issues, he’s running for president. If they drag her down, it has nothing to do with him. Likewise, if there is nothing there that bothers anyone, it isn’t his business either. The system will run its course. Plus, it was a good political move to make some headlines and show friendliness to Clinton supporters.
(I find her years of bad judgment and dumb votes, her wealth and company she keeps, and the dynasty issue to be bigger issues. But that’s just me.)
Clinton adopting Sanders and O’Malley positions made news this last year. : )
This is a direct quote from
This is a direct quote from Bernie. I don’t think he’d be saying this just to garner favors or as a political move. I think he’s a very principled guy and would only say this if he means it:
He said “I like Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton.”
If he respects her then I would think he doesn’t think there’s anything behind the allegations over Benghazi or the Emailgate farce. I wouldn’t think he’d say he respects anyone he thought was involved in either of those situations in the way the right has attempted to portray her involvement.
Bernie silent on Israel and Marijuana?
Alongside with Bernie’s good points are the not so good points. In so far as Israel is concerned, I’ll paraphrase several friends who I’d like to think knows better than me, that The Bern does not and will not discuss the huge amount of Israel’s money the U.S. sends to Israel annually, the support that we know of and of course the support we don’t know of and, the claim he doesn’t talk about and is weak on other foreign policy. Perhaps someone on here knows more about that…
What I do know about, is that when Marijuana Resolve, a Vermont organization, in 2010 formed to work to get marijuana decriminalization passed as a harm reduction measure in the VT state assembly, he could have helped to keep young people out prison by discussing publicly that on the Fed level he’d like to see marijuana removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. During the mission of MR he was not only silent but ignored any contact with his office and made it clear he wanted nothing to do with it.. Were the people, including young folks, in Vermont, not important enough in his mind to lend them a supporting hand? Oh, that’s right, it was not politically expedient for him five years ago.
During his Prez campaign, however, when it was clear he was attracting sizable college and other young people crowds, then and only then did he come out publicly favorably about marijuana. It’s that form of politico-opportunism that makes me mistrust all politicians, including The Bern.
As we've seen in every
As we’ve seen in every election -long held viewpoints seem to change once that mystical house on Pennsylvania Ave. is in the horizon. At least Bernie has come around albeit no doubt reluctantly. Hilary is still solid in her stance that she is not in favor of legalizing marijuana and barely supports marijuana for medical use.(* barely supports* is my language and opinion – nothing that she has said in public nor probably ever will)
The same corporate corruption we have now
HC nor BS has ever touched decriminalization and neither ever will. BS only went for ‘legal’ because he misthinks it will help get elected with the young folk’s vote in the primaries. The last time young people influenced an election was during the Vietnam war under Johnson and Nixon. It won’t happen again for a long time, if ever.
I think you’re describing why I likely will not vote again. There’s no one person on that horizon that I’d give my vote, despite voting for BS for VT senator. But for the Prez, no one. My one vote has been wasted too often, the last being for BO.
I’ve said before once the Prez election is over, the real power is in the two Houses of the Congress, not the oval office. Because of the intentional intense media focus on the Prez election and lukewarm focus on the 50 state dispersal of the congressional elections real change cannot happen. Before we need a social, or economic revolution we need a major congressional turnover and even then that will face the same corporate corruption we have now.
I have to disagree a little
I have to disagree a little with you, Vidda- Barack Obama can thank young voters-,especially those voting for the first time- for helping to put him in the White House in his first term. Not just the voting youth but much of his volunteer staff were young, tech savvy 20 -something’s- Many of whom took time off from college to work fiercely on his campaign. I don’t think Bernie has that same ability to draw in as many young voters. You are absolutely right though, that it doesn’t happen very often. If young people got more involved and were actually a force in determining who our next president and congress would be it would be a much different world we’d be living in.
Considering the current world
Considering the current world situation I don’t think legalization of marijuana is the primary overriding policy issue of the times. Just a personal thought. It is true that Clinton has a cautious view about legalization of marijuana but she thinks criminalization as it’s been done should be stopped. Let’s see what she actually says, not what a poster here thinks she thinks (an problematic issue with citizen journalism, the “I think or I feel” method of reporting). Sorry, an aside there, but here is what Clinton says SHE thinks according to Mother Jones, a pretty reliable source on the issue in my opinion. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/hillary-clinton-marijuana-medical-schedule-reclassified
I'm sorry, Rosa- I didn't
I’m sorry, Rosa- I didn’t realize that this site wasn’t a place for us to express our opinions. I find it odd that you apparently feel personal opinions are a problem in citizen journalism. I was not crediting my comment to Hilary- in fact I made a point of stating that it was my opinion. An opinion I formed after reading and listening to her speak about her feelings regarding the legalization of marijuana. That’s actually how many opinions are initially formed- from listening to people speak about an issue.
I imagine that the legalization of marijuana is, indeed, a big deal and a priority to all the state’s that are struggling economically( talking about you, Vermont!)and also to all the people who have been imprisoned, lost their jobs or now have criminal records because they committed the dastardly crime of having a little marijuana on their person, in their car or in their body. Priority to those folks, I bet.
I hope that everyone who is active on this site will continue to express their opinions- recognizing, of course, that just because it’s your opinion it doesn’t make it true. Although sometimes it will be. And, I also hope that everyone who does express their opinion on this site doesn’t feel the need to always qualify that opinion with a link to information that may or may not also just be someone’s opinion.
Opinions are well and fine,
Opinions are well and fine, and I don’t have a problem with what anyone thinks or feels either. My problem is attributing certain beliefs or positions to someone as a definite stance when that persons own words (as in candidates or public people) are readily available.
Actually no offense, but you didn’t say it was your opinion, you said the choice of words “barely supports” was your opinion. Here is what you said literally : “As we’ve seen in every election -long held viewpoints seem to change once that mystical house on Pennsylvania Ave. is in the horizon. At least Bernie has come around albeit no doubt reluctantly. Hilary is still solid in her stance that she is not in favor of legalizing marijuana and barely supports marijuana for medical use.(* barely supports* is my language and opinion – nothing that she has said in public nor probably ever will)”
So my thought was: Let’s see what she actually has said, as in the Mother Jones article.
I actually wasn’t necessarily directing my comments to you but just as a general comment. Let me clarify, I don’t have a problem at all with personal opinions in citizen journalism. What I take issue with is using your opinion of what someone believes when their own words are available. It’s just more accurate and my biggest concern about citizen journalism is the lack of accuracy and fact-checking. And I’m not absolving myself of having been guilty of this either but I try to make sure I can back up what I’m using as source material for my personal opinion. Otherwise a personal opinion isn’t really worth much. Needs to be based on credible information.
At any rate, I’m going to bow out now as I think this thread is getting a bit off topic regarding Lise’s original opinion piece. Just on a final note, yes, I agree with you that marijuana legalization is undoubtedly important to the people you mention, but my point was that considering all that’s going on in the world today affecting millions this is a small blip, albeit a huge issue for those personally affected. I’m not diminishing the effect of our penalizing laws on people at all. Also personally, in my opinion, relying on marijuana sales in order to boost struggling economies is not necessarily the answer to fiscal soundness.
I just want to clarify a
I just want to clarify a little bit here. I had read the Mother Jones piece before you posted the link here and, in my opinion, Hilary’s stand on lowering marijuana to the same class as cocaine and/or heroin ( which are deadly drugs and kill thousands of people every year)qualifies – to my mind – as “barely supportive,” There’s nothing progressive or even fair about so severely limiting the use of marijuana. Medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are two very different things- both should be readily available for those who wish or need to use them. My opinion.
If you read the article, you
If you read the article, you need to reread it. She did not say anything about lowering marijuana to the same class as “cocaine and/or heroin”. That is where marijuana is now classified federally (Class 1) along with heroin.
She said at this time she supports and would, as President, lower marijuana to a Class 2 drug which would put it into the category of usage for medical purposes but not recreational. And yes, that would put it in the same category as cocaine.
This is what the article actually says: “Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule 1 drug, alongside substances like heroin*, which means the government sees no legitimate uses for it. Clinton said that, as president, she’d reclassify marijuana to Schedule 2, the category for drugs like prescription painkillers. It would remain an illegal drug for everyday consumption but would be eligible for possible medical uses.”
Note that Mother Jones issued a correction (hence the asterisk) noting that cocaine is already considered a Category 2 drug undoubtedly because it is also used for medical purposes. But at present marijuana, as I said, is a Class 1 drug along with heroin. There’s nothing in the article about “lowering marijuana to the level of heroin, it’s already at that level.
The article also says “she’s keeping an eye on the state-level legalization experiments while still making up her mind on where she stands.”
Just to clarify what the article says her position is.
Bernie for Vice President?
On the Dem horizons Hillary and Bernie, at this point in time, seem to be the media favorites. And, we all know how influential the media is. Oh, yes, and according to the (media) polls, the same.
Because Bernie isn’t really “Hard on Hillary” he might a vice presidential possibly on Hillary’s shortlist when the time comes to select a running mate (I say this without trying to make an absolute prediction of who the people with actually vote for in the primaries).
This election year superciliousness
It’s not surprising that the litany of crises enumerated by Lisa, this election year superciliousness dominates the comments in her article.
That was an error on my part-
That was an error on my part- not in how I read or interpreted the article but in mistaking the classification numbers. Which does not change the fact that she is in favor of limiting a relatively harmless substance to a class alongside drugs that are deadly.I’m not sure how much more research there needs to be done on marijuana – particularly in the case of medical marijuana.
It’s already proven to be an effective and safe way to significantly lower excruciating pain affiliated with cancers; autoimmune diseases. injuries, bone and joint diseases. Yet there are still ridiculous restrictions put on it’s medical use – never mind any personal non medical use.
But, hey…who knows? Maybe she’ll change her mind again as the nomination gets closer and she needs to attract a more liberal and younger voter base.
Evolution of ideas and viewpoints can be good for us all.
Okay, this is the last time I
Okay, this is the last time I will write about this subject. She has said and I quote “Clinton said that, as president, she’d reclassify marijuana to Schedule 2, the category for drugs like prescription painkillers.” That means that she will reclassify marijuana to a medical usable status.
That means that the classification would be the same as for prescription painkillers, not “drugs that are deadly” as you said, except in that all drugs can be deadly when mis-used.
She said she hasn’t come to a conclusion as to whether recreational use would be okay with her, that means she is weighing the issue. Personally I would rather see some weighing of the issue and not just a headlong rush to okaying decisions. Headlong rushes have gotten us into a lot of messes.
You seem to want to believe that she is saying she refuses to reclassify the drug to a medical use status. Regardless of what you want to think she is saying, the fact is that she stated quite clearing that she would reclassify the drug to a medical use status.
You don't think cocaine is a
You don’t think cocaine is a deadly drug? You have no knowledge of how many people – often young people- die as a result of cocaine use? Regardless of what you may want to believe Hilary is saying the fact that she still thinks marijuana is comparable to cocaine – which is a Class 2 drug- is ridiculous.
I never said or even suggested that she wasn’t finally willing to reclassify marijuana as a medical use status. I said – and she said – she would put it in the same category as cocaine when anyone with even a fraction of a brain knows that there is absolutely no comparison of those two substances. None. They don’t react in the human body the same way; they don’t share the same potential for addiction; they don’t cause the same loss of life and health issues. So, please don’t presume that you know what I believe. I don’t think she is saying anything different than what she is actually saying. You may well be the one who has a different interpretation of what she is actually saying and doing.
End of this ridiculous conversation for me. Have a lovely afternoon.
OH my goodness. This is where
OH my goodness. This is where your touted citizen journalism totally goes off the rails. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing, in Clinton’s statement that indicates that she thinks marijuana is comparable to cocaine. She did not mention cocaine at all. Mother Jones’s reporter noted that cocaine is a Class II drug. That’s all. The only reason this conversation is ridiculous is because you insist on making assumptions based on nothing. You are right, she isn’t saying anything different than what she is saying. And that is not what you’re taking away from the written comments.
On topic - off topic
On topic or off topic, marijuana should be made available to an adult market along the “Alcohol Model” not on Schedule II. There’s no damn point to making roughly some many millions of adult marijuana consumers go through the incredibly invasive prescriptive process to enjoy marijuana, any more than they should be required to have an Rx for alcohol. It’s damn silly and stupid to even think that. It’s time to treat adults as adults, which means that adults are responsible for their own actions.
Rosa: “I don’t think legalization of marijuana is the primary overriding policy issue of the times”
Vidda: Try telling that to the 10’s of 10’s of thousands of marijuana prisoners who have been and are needlessly languishing in American prisons. It takes a pretty coldhearted person to scoot around that with half steps.. I also refer you back to KAlden’s comments.
Mother Jones: “Marijuana legalization is quickly becoming one of the top social causes among Democrats, with polls now showing over half of the country behind ending the prohibition.”
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what Hillary says about marijuana. Anybody ever hear of Mena, ArKansas?
Bill Clinton + Mena, Arkansas: https://www.google.com/#q=Bill+Clinton+%2B+Mena%2C+Arkansas
…and I don’t give a damn if some people think this is just a conspiracy…