Sanders’ puritanical liberalism is his most salient hurdle to success in office. It is also exactly why a vocal subset of my peers seem to like him. When UC Berkeley students belong to an institution where two-thirds self-describe as some version of liberal, we ought to regularly question what that designation even means. But too often, those who I encounter in the more liberal pockets of Berkeley do not, advocating instead, like blind zealots with unfocused beliefs, for high-minded progressive ideals.

By pledging their allegiance to broad, complicated dogmas, the most liberal of my friends avoid having to justify their position. Sanders’ elusive rhetoric and convincing idealism mirrors their own hazy political consciousness and, more importantly, affords them to not question the elements of the things they say they believe. By dint of the fact that my UC Berkeley peers and I are pursuing a college degree makes us a pragmatic subset of the population. Why, then, does our knowledge of the importance of realism seem to diminish when faced by unchecked progressivism? Why has my former pro-Hillary housemate suddenly denounced Clinton, in light of Sanders’ momentum, as “only slightly better than Ted Cruz?”

I laud the efforts made by Sanders to foster discourse about our economic and sociopolitical climate. But I also think that certain rhetoric can be dangerous, especially when its argument is rooted in a foundational illusion, and particularly when that illusion seems to dissuade otherwise contemplative students from sensibility. Mythology is almost always antagonistic to advancement. As such, activists ought to seriously question the stories that political candidates want us to believe in order to avoid harboring a culture of blind liberalism for the sake of liberalism.

Sanders personifies the utopian existence that energizes my peers’ general desire for a more accepting world. But millennials don’t love Bernie. They love the image projected by the zoetrope of his campaign: his role as visionary figurehead, the idyllic American vision that he ardently maintains, the simplicity and the nostalgia and the steadfast belief that life, in the end, is not nearly as complex as we’ve convinced ourselves to believe.

He's brash and burly and believes in strict adherence to the Constitution's original text. She's soft-spoken and slight and believes in a "living Constitution" that can change with the times. On controversial cases, they are often the most likely of any pairing of the nine Supreme Court justices to disagree.

Despite their standing as the intellectual lions of the left and right, Ginsburg and Scalia have forged an uncommon bond on a court where close friendships outside of chambers are rare.

Their areas of agreement may be few — which is likely to be the case this month when the justices decide whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry — but they maintain a tone of respect.

Scalia, 79, and Ginsburg, 82, frequently dine and vacation together. Every Dec. 31, they ring in the new year together. Their relationship has even inspired an opera, set to debut this summer.

LOS GATOS -- Joe Kapp was walking up the street to a local hardware store recently to buy chicken feed. But by the time he had gone two blocks, the former Cal and Minnesota Vikings quarterback couldn't remember what he needed.

He asked for dog food instead.

Kapp, 77, who led the Vikings against the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl IV in 1970, just can't remember anymore. The effects of Alzheimer's disease are holding his mind captive.

The man known for taking a licking on the field shared his condition with this news organization as word about the brain disease of star quarterbacks Ken Stabler and Earl Morrall surfaced before Super Bowl 50 on Sunday at Levi's Stadium.

Darren Wilson. On the other hand, LaVoy Finicum was an unsympathetic figure (a right-wing, gun-owning good ‘ol boy), and a potential threat, so he was fair game to be gunned down in the snow.

For the right, LaVoy Finicum was a sympathetic figure (a God-fearing family man), so he had Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights which were violated by the FBI. On the other hand, Michael Brown was an unsympathetic figure (a young, black “thug”), and a potential threat, so he was fair game to be gunned down in the street.

Both are blinded by their respective bigotries to the truth that rights are inherent to the individual, and are not based on group identity or cultural affinity.

Nobody should be gunned down in the road like a rabid dog, regardless of whether the individual is a pillar of his community or a hardened criminal, a philanthropic saint or an incorrigible misanthrope. Every individual has an inalienable right to life: a right not to be killed unless that individual is presenting an imminent threat to the life of someone else.

Now I know what some of you are going to say: The wave of support he’ll bring to the polls in November would hand Congress back over to Democrats so he could get this passed.

No, it won’t.

First, there’s almost zero chance Democrats reclaim a majority in the House of Representatives this November, though there is a distinct possibility that they can retake the majority in the Senate. But even if, by some miracle, Democrats took back the House and gained a majority in the Senate – they would still need 60 seats in the Senate to prevent Republicans from being able to filibuster legislation. That’s even more unlikely than Democrats winning back a majority in the House.

But even beyond all of that, there’s another reality many Sanders supporters seem to ignore. That is, there are quite a few congressional Democrats from somewhat conservative areas of this country supported by left of center voters who would oppose some of the policies on which Sanders is running. So it’s not just that Sanders would need Democrats to take back both the House and Senate, he would need overwhelming majorities in both houses to stand any chance of his proposals getting through the legislative process.