Thom Hartmann: Len Gilroy- 'Should Prisons Be Run For Profit?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- to answer Thom Hartmann's question: hell no!

"Thom Hartmann hosts Len Gilroy, Director of Government Reform at Reason Foundation. They debate the idea of making U.S. Prisons into private businesses.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann 

I agree with Thom Hartmann's first point about private prisons and that they shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place. But then he goes into this Far-Left propaganda about Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics, which has nothing to do with private prisons and loses me like a Ford Pinto driver competing with NACAR drivers at the Indianapolis 500, or some race. And perhaps leaving his guest to wonder if he was ever going to be able to talk about what he originally was on the show, for which was private prisons. 

When I think of what government should be doing and I'l admit my list is not very long, but the main role of government is to protect and to serve, as well as defend and regulate how people interact with each other. So of course I believe government should be running our corrections system. 

Our corrections system should not have incentive to have as many inmates as possible, or leave inmates in prison as long as possible, thats what leads to overcrowded prisons. As well as sending non-violent offenders to prison who aren't a threat to anyone. And I'm thinking of drug addicts and other offenders who we and them would be better off with a short-term Jail Sentence. Or doing their time in halfway houses doing community service and help finding work. 

The biggest issue with privatization of corrections, is the fact that their main job is to make money. And the longer their inmates serve and the more inmates they have, the more money they make. Not at the expense of their inmates who live there, but at taxpayer expense, being paid for by people who are struggling to pay their current taxes. So hell no to private prisons, but hell yes to reducing our overcrowded public prisons, but getting most of our non-violent offenders, who aren't white-collar, economic offenders. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Ana Kasparian: 'Free Speech Has a Price'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski talking to Ana Kasparian.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

"So where is the line drawn on freedom of speech here in the US? Or better yet, who decides what is socially acceptable speech or not? Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks discusses." 

From Russia Today

As long as people don't threaten to kill, physically or libel other people or yell fire like in a theater, people can pretty much say whatever the hell that they want to in America, without facing consequences at least from government. It's that simple and that includes hate speech and the Westboro Church case back in March is a perfect example of this. 

You can call people whatever the hell you want to and say whatever the hell you want to them, as long as you don't threaten to physically hurt them, kill them or libel them. And then they can say whatever the hell that they want to in response in reply, under the same certain conditions in response. Thats what free speech is about. 

It's not just about political speech or religious speech for Christians (of course) hat some so-called Christian-Conservatives  may suggest. That however doesn't mean that when people say something that offends or that other people disagree with, that they are aren't potential consequences for what people say, nor should there be in any liberal democracy. People can respond to each other indefinitely as long as they don't threaten to physically hurt or kill someone or libel them. 

Yes, free speech does come with a price but that doesn't mean its not worth paying. People have to understand when living in a liberal democracy that before they say something that may offend others. Or others may disagree with, especially controversial things that may be viewed as bigoted. That the people who are offended or disagree with you may respond and hit hard back. So if you are going to be very expressive and feel the need to express yourself on controversial issues that you better have thick skin and not be easily offended. Especially when people say things to you that you know is wrong and if anything is ignorant. 

Me personally, as far as I'm concern, people can say and should feel free to say whatever they want to me. Just as long as they say it to my face and not behind my back. For one thing I pretty much know when someone has an opinion about me and what it is. And when I disagree with it, so what everyone is entitled to an opinion. And when they are right I take it for what its worth and move on with my life. It's not the act thats the problem but the coverup thats the problem. A lesson from the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. 

So to answer the question free speech does come with a price, the price being that people can talk back. Which is a good lesson in my case like my blog (to use as an example) I allow people to say whatever they want to about it, now I prefer that they are on topic and not make it personal. They also need to know however that if they are going to hit me, that I'll probably hit back. Unless they are so ignorant that they aren't worth my time. And by the way I'm thick skin and I hit hard, not bragging just a fact. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Do We Need Less Democracy?'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski, interviewing James Poulos.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

"Peter Orszag, the former Office of Management and Budget chief for the Obama Administration has written an op-ed entitled "Too much of a good thing: why we need less Democracy". Orszag argues that our Congress is paralyzed by gridlock and argues for expanding automatic stabilizers, having a progressive tax code, unemployment insurance or linking the payroll tax holiday to the unemployment rate. But does this approach of putting more power into the hands of even fewer, really sound like a good idea? James Poulos, Host of The Bottom Line and Reform School on PJTV weighs in." 

From Russia Today  

"Why we need less democracy.

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

I know that such ideas carry risks. And I have arrived at these proposals reluctantly: They come more from frustration than from inspiration. But we need to confront the fact that a polarized, gridlocked government is doing real harm to our country. And we have to find some way around it."

You can read the rest at The New Republic 

"Peter Orszag spoke about government reform and fiscal responsibility. In his remarks he outlined the Obama administrations proposal to cut federal spending by asking agencies to identify under-performing programs in order to reach a 5% reduction. He also answered questions from the audience." 

Source:CSPAN- at the Center For American Progress in Washington.

From CSPAN

So since Congress has a 15% approval rating (give or take) and the 15% of the country either hate government and don't want them to do anything, (or are drunk or high, perhaps escaped mental patients who are willing to like anyone who doesn't view them as crazy) that since the Federal Government is so unpopular, we should just give more power to an institution that is very unpopular, for very good reasons.  

Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results." If it's broke, break it more, perhaps even destroy it, which is essentially what former Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag is saying here. 

The way to fix government is not to make it more powerful. If the voters want better representatives and government, that's what they'll vote for. That's how democracy works, that's especially how liberal democracy in America works. 

Richard Nixon Library: Oral History- Tim Naftali Interviewing George McGovern

Source:Richard Nixon Library- Former U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee George McGovern, talking to presidential historian Tim Naftali, in 2009. 

"George McGovern recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, 26 August 2009, the Richard
Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum."

From The Richard Nixon Library 

“George Stanley McGovern, who rose from small-town roots in Avon and Mitchell to the highest heights of American politics, died Sunday morning at a Sioux Falls hospice facility from a combination of medical conditions associated with his age. He was 90.

Though he was known mostly for his unsuccessful 1972 presidential campaign, McGovern was more than that. He was an accomplished student and debater during his school days in Mitchell; a World War II bomber pilot decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross; a doctorate-level scholar; a history professor; the rebuilder of the South Dakota Democratic Party; a U.S. representative; director of the Food for Peace program in the Kennedy administration; a U.S. senator; an icon of the anti-Vietnam War effort; a lifelong crusader against the scourge of hunger; a United Nations delegate and ambassador; the author of 14 books; and, in his later years, an elder statesman who remained a sought-after speaker and commenter on issues of the day.” 

Source:The Mitchell Republic- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) running for President in 1972.

“Sen. George McGovern gives the victory sign to throng of about 20,000 persons assembled at Madison Square garden, June 14, 1972 in New York for rally in support to his attempt to win the democratic presidential candidacy. (AP Photo/Dave Pickoff)”

From The Mitchell Republic

George McGovern was someone with one hell of a political and professional resume, who represented South Dakota in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as a Leftist Democrat in one of the reddest states in the union. And yet he represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years.

Mr. McGovern served as Director of the U.S. Food For Peace Program, who won the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1972, who rebuilt the Democratic Party almost on his own, by bringing in so many new Democrats, who thought the Democratic Party was still the Dixiecrat Party that didn’t welcome ethnic or racial minorities or women, and so-forth.

Senator McGovern benefited the Democratic Party by 1976 with Jimmy Carter being elected President in 1976, who was a Progressive Democrat from the South and not as far to the left as the national Democratic Party. George McGovern was a man who truly believed in public service, that it was about representing the public and not furthering your career financially.

George McGovern grew up in the New Deal era in the Democratic Party era, the Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt and thought this was the politics of the future. And something that he believed in and was the dominant political philosophy up until the late 1960s or so.

The problem that Senator McGovern had was that by the time he was a national Democrat and becoming a major contender For President of the United States, Senator McGovern was not a New Deal Progressive Democrat, but more of a Henry Wallace Democratic Socialist, during a time when the country was moving to the right on economic policy and when high taxes, Welfare, big government were becoming unpopular.Yet

When the country was moving right economically, the George McGovern and the Democratic Party was moving left, thanks to the New-Left and Baby Boomers of the 1960s and 70s. Which made it almost impossible for a McGovernite like a McGovern to win nationally and win statewide perhaps in most states.

The main difference between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern’s landslide presidential losses, is that Senator Goldwater was ahead of his time and the country wasn’t quite ready for his let’s call it conservative-libertarianism in 1964. At the heart of the Great Society era in the country.

But in Senator McGovern’s case, the country moved past his and LBJ’s progressivism and Wallace/McGovern democratic socialism. And instead we’re looking for fewer taxes and more economic development and growth in America.

What I call the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, that’s different from the FDR or LBJ wing, was forming, but hasn’t had the power to nominate another McGovern Socialist to run for President in the Democratic Party.

The Far-Left of the Democratic Party tried with McGovern again in 1984, Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008. But none of these Far-Leftist Democrats, have come even close to being a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. And we are now seeing McGovern-Democrats running for President in social democratic third-parties.

George McGovern’s legacy for the Democratic Party, is that he expanded it. Taken it away from the right-wing Religious-Right of the South and giving the Republican Party a Christmas gift from hell. And turning the Democratic Party into more of a Northern and West Coast party. That relies on minorities and women, to be successful politically.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

AFP News Agency: 'French Left Claims Senate Win in Poll Blow For Sarkozy'

Source:AFP News Agency- The Bernie Sanders of France?

"France's left-wing opposition struck a blow against embattled centre-right leader President Nicolas Sarkozy's hopes for re-election Sunday, winning a historic victory in a senatorial vote.Duration... 

From the AFP News Agency 

What is considered Center-Left in France, would be their Socialist Party. (Led by Francois Hollande) And what would be Far-Left in France, would be their Communist Party and other hard-core Socialists, who perhaps don't self-describe as Communists, but who certainly have Communists leanings. 

What's Center-Left in France, is Far-Left in America. Just one of the many difference between France and America politically and governmentally. We have a lot of Socialists in America: perhaps 15-20% of the voting electorate and maybe 3-10 Democrats. The difference is American Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics as socialist. They tend to self-describe as progressive or liberal, even though a lot of what they believe is very regressive and illiberal. 

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Scott Wallace- 'Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?'

Source:The Real News- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vice President Harry Truman & Secretary Henry Wallace.

"WHEN VP WAS PROGRESSIVE Pt.2 Scott Wallace: It is a fight to create space for the progressive voice." 

From The Real News

What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Democratic Socialists (which is what the Henry Wallace Progressives were) in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.

Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even the so-called Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. 

The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours, is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.

RT America: 'Socialism in America'

Source:RT America- Niki Korokawa talking to President Vladimir Putin's RT America, about socialism in America.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Could that be the answer to bring America out of its economic trouble? Is America headed towards socialism? Is it really that big bad wolf people make it out to be? RT's Cedric Moon hosts a panel of Nicki Kurokawa and Michael Prysner where they debate the pros and cons of socialism in America." 

From RT America 

Similar to conservatism and libertarianism, socialism is a very diverse political philosophy with all sorts of different political factions. There isn't one definition of socialism, just like there isn't an official definition of conservatism or libertarianism. 

I put socialism into three different political factions: Social Democrats.Democratic Socialists, the most popular faction of socialism not just in America, but everywhere else, at least in the developed world. And then Communists who represent the authoritarian wing of socialism and tell people if you give the government your freedom and individualism, the government will take care of you. Which is essentially what Communist government's tell their people. 

And then you have people that I call at least Neo-Communists, people who aren't completely authoritarian and even anti-democracy, but try to limit opposition, individual choice, and individualism, to protect their regime. Venezuela is an example of a Neo-Communist government.

There isn't one sent of Socialists, just like there isn't one set of Conservatives. You have Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and then you have Communist leader Fidel Castro, from Cuba. They share certain principles as they relate to economics and wealth, but Senator Sanders believes not just in democracy, but social democracy and President Castro doesn't believe in any democracy at all. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Show & Tell: Death Penalty, Barbaric?'

Source:Russia Today- the Sexy Blonde?

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Now that Troy Davis has been executed, despite the amount of doubt surrounding his guilt, we asked if you if you think the US should still use the death penalty. Take a look at our responses. As always thanks for your responses and here's our next question for you. We discussed accusations by the GOP that President Obama is waging class warfare by proposing raising taxes on millionaires. So what do you think? Is Obama a class warrior?" 

From Russia Today

Before I get into my position on the death penalty I just want to lay out as one of maybe five people who haven't followed the Troy Davis case. All right, maybe ten people in the country. The Far-Left has been all over this story, like water on fish. I absolutely have no idea whether Mr Davis is guilty of the murder he was convicted of. And he's not the reason why I'm writing this post. But I will admit, that without this story I wouldn't be writing this post at this time. 

The death penalty is not an issue I think that much about except when I'm watching true crime shows and thats the only time. And I've basically has the same position on the death penalty since my late teen early 20s. If you believe in human life and that all innocent life is worth cherishing, which is what I do, then there needs to a the toughest standards for people who don't and will intentionally take innocent lives, for whatever the reasons. Which is who and what the death penalty is for: for people who don't respect innocent lives to the point that they'll intentionally take them regardless of the reasons for doing so. 

Bernie Sanders: 'My Medicaid Matters Rally'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) holding a political rally in defense of the low-income Federal insurance program known as Medicaid. 

"Recorded on September 21, 2011" 

From Bernie Sanders

Before one celebrates how great the Medicaid health insurance program is, they should understand that it's a bare-bones operation. Meaning that it only covers certain things and not other things, including health care that people may need to survive. It's very expensive for the states to run and for the most part do run this program with not much help from the Federal Government who make them run it. States don't have a choice. If the Feds don't come up with the money, they are let's say stuck (for lack of a better word) and have to find that missing revenue for themselves. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Dean Baker- 'President Obama's Deficit Plan: Class Warfare?'

Source:Russia Today- anchor Alyona Minkovski, talking to left-wing economist Dean Baker.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"The White House has proposed a plan to save 3 trillion dollars over the next decade, but they've tacked on 1.1 trillion in planned war savings to try and push that up to 4 trillion. Then, there's the Buffet Rule where the president will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than 1 million dollars to ensure that they pay at least the same rate as middle-income taxpayers. Republicans have already responded by calling it class warfare. Obama also said if the super committee comes up with only cuts to entitlement programs and no tax increases, he'll veto the plan. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research discusses." 

From Russia Today

The real question should be here is President Obama's deficit reduction plan a policy plan or a political plan, or is it a combination of both, I would argue its a little of both. 

It is a policy plan because Barack Obama I believe clearly believes in taxing millionaires more as a way to pay down the debt and deficit. He's been arguing for that at least since he started running for President back in 2007. I'll give the President that: he's proposing something he actually believes in. Which unfortunately as common in American politics as mice chasing cats. 

The Obama plan is clearly a political plan as well. This deficit reduction plan is clearly about throwing a bone to the Left (and I'm sorry if this offends the Far-Left) to bring them back in his corner for the 2012 presidential campaign and that they work for his reelection, which at this point is clearly in doubt. And he needs both of these factions to not only vote for him in 2012, but work for him as well in 2012. 

Is this plan class warfare? Of course not, it's an attempt to demand that the people in the country pay their fair share of taxes in what's left of our progressive taxation system. It's an attempt to demand that the only group of people thats benefited in our economy the last ten years, that they pay more in taxes to help pay down our massive debt and deficit, because they can afford to and won't get hurt by it. 

Class warfare would be about punishing a class of people just because they are part of that class and do it to the point that it hurts them. An example of class warfare would be to lay a group of middle class workers off, so executives can make more money. Which is done on a regular basis or running a big company into bankruptcy where thousands of people lose their jobs and life savings. Perhaps even reputations and then walking away with a big bonus package. 

Thom Hartmann: Tim Carpenter- 'A Cut to Medicare we Can All Live With'

Source:Thom Hartmann Show- Medicare, anyone?

"Thom Hartmann meets Tim Carpenter, National Director-Progressive Democrats of America, at Fighting Bob Fest. They talk about Medicare and the current status of the Progressive Movement in America.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From the Thom Hartmann Show

The main problem with the Democratic Socialist movement, is that they don't have enough of their members elected in public office, especially statewide. And Tim Carpenter understands this and is trying to change it.

Tim Carpenter with his so-called Progressive Democrats of America (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) is taking a different approach in trying to accomplish what the Far-Left (or New-Left, if you prefer) is trying to accomplish in owning their own major political party. 

The Far-Left is trying to take over the Democratic Party (which is already a major political party) and essentially kick out the Center-Left in the party. (The real Progressives) And try to turn the Democratic Party into a Democratic Socialist Party. (Or Social Democratic Party, if you prefer) 

Which is the opposite of what I want them to do which is to just take their members in the Democratic Party and get the hell out of merge with the Green Party and Democratic Socialists of America (the self-described Socialists) and create their own left-wing party, where none of their members (except for perhaps the Communists) would look fringe or radical, at least within their own party. 

Giovanni Minnelli: Ralph Nader- 'We Live In a Two Party Elected Dictatorship'

Source:Giovanni Minnelli- New-Left political Ralph Nader, about the American two-party system.

"Saturday 22 December 2007: "In a December interview, Ralph Nader, who is running again as an independent candidate for president, gave his verdict on his major party opponents" 

From Giovanni Minnelli

Ralph Nader has the tendency of saying things that are very provocative, articulate, correct, even, as well as saying crazy things in the same speech or forum, making the same point.  He has a tendency to sound like a mental patient who is on his medication, but then it suddenly runs out and now he sounds like himself again, with people trying to figure out what the hell he's talking about, but in the same speech. 

America is clearly a two-party System, from my perspective a a Liberal Democrat who will probably die as a Democrat and proud to be it. We have a Republican Party made up of Center-Right Conservative-Libertarians, as well as a Far-Right, populist, Tea Party Nationalist base. 

And a Democratic Party made up of Center-Left Progressives, and Center-Right Liberals (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) and a growing Far-Left Socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) faction that I guess Ralph Nader would be part of, if he was still a Democrat. Of course the two major political parties are very different in America. 

If the Far-Left (or New-Left, if you prefer) in America doesn't like our two-party system, they can take their members and create their own left-wing political party. Which means raising a helluva lot of money trying to form states parties and getting ballot access for their state affiliates. Or they can try to survive a a fairly small faction as part of a much larger and diverse political party known as the Democratic Party.

Al Jazeera: 'Diplomats Attend Syrian Activist's Vigil'

Source:Al Jazeera- reporting on Syria.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a free-to-air international Arabic news channel based in Doha, Qatar that is operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The channel is a flagship of the media conglomerate and hence, is the only single offering to carry the name as simply "Al Jazeera" in its branding.

The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia 

"Several foreign ambassadors to Syria have attended a condolence ceremony for a prominent slain Syrian activist in the Damascus suburb of Daraya.

Activists posted a video of US and French ambassadors to Syria conveying their condolences at the vigil of Ghiyath Matar.

Mourners who attended said security forces raided the ceremony after the diplomats left. 

Al Jazeera's Omar Al Saleh reports from Jordan." 

From Al Jazeera 

Bashar Al-Assad (the President of Syria) is at the point and has been at the point, that all he cares about is staying in power. And he doesn't have a limit at least yet on how many people he's willing to have killed in order to do that. And China and Russia have been no help if anything the opposite, in preventing the mass- killings of people in Syria who are fed up with the Assad Regime and want a say in who represents them in government and how they live their lives. 

The Arab League has actually been pretty responsible here and this is an organization that usually backs authoritarian regimes in Arabia. The European Union and United States have been tough in their rhetoric against the Assad Regime. And have started economic sanctions against the Assad Regime. But other than that haven't done much to stop the Assad Regime from murdering its own people. The Assad Regime is an actual government, that is murdering their own people. 

Al Jazeera: Cal Perry- 'Opinion Divided Over Palestinian Statehood Bid'

Source:Al Jazeera- the United Nations (or World Debating Society) discussing Palestine.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a free-to-air international Arabic news channel based in Doha, Qatar that is operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The channel is a flagship of the media conglomerate and hence, is the only single offering to carry the name as simply "Al Jazeera" in its branding.

The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia 

"The Palestinian Authority says it will seek recognition for a fully-fledged Palestinian state from the UN Security Council. 

But not everyone's on board. The EU is still undecided on its position. Israel and the US are against the move.

Al Jazeera's Cal Perry reports from Jerusalem." 

From Al Jazeera

The Israeli-Palestinian area is an area thats basically divided into two different ethnic groups, as well as religions, that may never be able function as one country together. Which is why Palestine has basically become an independent territory of Israel. Similar to how Puerto Rico is a territory of America, where a significant number of Puerto Ricans a lot of them decedents from Spain consider Puerto Rico a country, a lot of Palestinians consider Palestine a country. Even though it';s not currently, but moving in that direction hopefully for them as well as Israel as far as I'm concern. 

It's in Israel's interest as former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel Shimone Peres once said. That Israel a tiny country (about the size of Delaware physically) and with a population of only 7M people, less than New York City (and Israel is a country) that Palestine become completely independent of Israel. And for them to govern their own affairs, but of course under certain conditions. So Israel wouldn't have any need to occupy another country and could just worry about the affairs of Israel and not the aide of another country as well. But only under certain conditions. 

Palestine would first have a peace treaty similar to what Israel has with Egypt. 

That Palestine would crackdown on terrorists in Palestine and Israel does the same thing in Israel. Terrorists that represent threats to both countries and that both countries aren't a threat to each other. 

And the have diplomatic and trade relations with each other as well. 

That neither country sponsors terrorists and they work together to defeat terrorism, that they become partners in the War on Terror. That they both recognize the right for the other to exist as well. 

Palestine at this point is not ready to become an independent country: they don't have the ability to defend themselves and meet these conditions. They don't have the military or law enforcement capabilities to do these things. And they don't have a national government thats responsible for governing the whole country. 

Russia Today: 'IMF Bailouts Way to One World Govt, Greeks sick of Eurocrat orders'

Source:Russia Today- talking about the sinking, socialist Greek economy.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Anthony Wile, the founder and chief editor of thedailybell.com website, believes that whether Greece decides to leave the euro zone comes down to the people, who are getting frustrated and are no longer willing to take the shots being called by others from the outside." 

From Russia Today

I generally support the concept of the International Monetary Fund (try saying that fast, or IMF which is easier to say fast) to prevent countries even to fault of their own. And I think Greece would qualify here to prevent them from going bankrupt which would be very bad for its people. As well as its neighbors because when economy's tend to collapse, people can get desperate and look to move to other countries. Making things more difficult for the countries that have to deal with these refugees for lack of a better word. 

But if Greece doesn't want to be put under certain restrictions from the IMF and is expecting the IMF to bail them out with no questions asked, they have another thing coming (as the band Judas Priest said) and perhaps should look for a way to solve their own financial problems. 

Greece shouldn't come to America to bail them out because we have our own financial issues, that if we don't address fairly soon, we may need help from the IMF as well in the future which I believe no American wants. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Can US Compete w. China on Infrastructure?'

Source:Russia Today- talking to Ryan Avent.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"President Obama gave his jobs speech last night announcing a $450 billion plan. But to what extent will initiatives like an $80 billion infrastructure plan create jobs for some of the 14 million unemployed Americans? And how would this plan help the U.S. stack up with a country like China. The Economist's Ryan Avent weighs in." 

From Russia Today

I'm really getting tired of hearing this notion that China is passing America economically and perhaps in every other important category. 

Here some facts: America has a population of 313M people and a GDP of 14.78T$ and a per-capita income of 47K$. 

China has a population of 1.33B people and a GDP of 5.87T$ and a per-capita Income of 4,382$. China has a population of over four times as America and America has an economy 2.5 times the size. And our PCI is almost twelve times the size. 

China has come along way, but they have a hell of a long way to go. They have beautiful infrastructure in their big cities, where most of their wealthy and middle class people live. But we are still talking about a developing country where with about 1B people who live in awful poverty in their rural areas. Our poor rural areas are probably rich compared to China's. 

China probably within 10-20 years will have the largest gross domestic product in the world. (Or GDP) But unless America continues to slide our per-capita income which is more important, because that gets to purchasing power will probably still trample China's. 

Russia, Mexico, and Brazil all have PCI that are at least twice the size of China's. These are all still developing countries that are moving in the direction of becoming developed nations with a long way to go.

The White House: 'President Obama Presents American Jobs Act'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing the 111th Congress about his proposed American Jobs Act.

"Shares plan to create jobs with joint session of Congress. August 8, 2011." 

From The White House

Actually, I would prefer to call this post:President Obama Finally Goes On The Record, but I'm limited as far as how many characters I can share when it comes to titles on posts with social networks. And you really need to be a social networker to understand what that means. And if you are absolutely dying to know what that means, send me an email and I may answer that for your you. But keep in mind, I might ask to see proof that you are actually dying, so I don't expect seeing any emails on social networking. But so be it I can put the full title of my post. LOL

I would give President Obama 9.5 tonight which would be like a three run home run (for you baseball fans) on tone, substance, and length. My only problem with the President's Speech would be him pushing for tax credits to encourage business's to hire. It's not that business's don't want to hire right now, it's that they don't believe they can afford to hire, because of the lack of demand. Any tax credits should relate in encouraging people and business's to spend money because of our lack of demand. Which would lead into more hiring to meet the new demand. Something like a payroll tax cut, or consumer tax credit that people would have to spend and not save. 

President Obama was very strong on infrastructure spending without actually mentioning infrastructure. Coming out in favor and going on the record for a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself after it gets start up capitol. And the figure is good as well 447B$. I would put most of that money in a NIB and let them do their work. Start rebuilding and building schools, bridges, airports, dams, highways, buildings, etc, to start putting our construction Workers back to work. 

President Obama not only talked about an extension in Unemployment Insurance, but empowering these people to go back to school and get additional skills. As well as subsidizing their employment as they go back to work for free as far as where they work. But they would still have their Unemployment Insurance and be able to keep their skills in check, especially for the long term unemployed. 

President Obama talked about passing the three trade deals that he hasn't pushed very hard or even sent up to Congress: Central America, Columbia, and Korea. So American business's can sell their products oversees and we can have the same trade access in foreign markets as they have here. 

I believe the President went into this speech knowing that the House Republican Leadership won't pass it as it currently stands. But with how House Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor have reacted to it, not calling it DOA and being in favor of some type of payroll tax credit as well as infrastructure spending.  

The President has been talking about creating jobs for thirty three months now, without actually putting anything in writing and sending something up to Congress. And tonight he finally went on the record and put a jobs plan on the table.

MSNBC: Herman Cain: 'The Word Privatization Is Used To Kill An Idea'

Source:MSNBC- businessman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, at the MSNBC debate.

"The word privatization is used to try and kill the idea before it takes off. With all due respect, sir, it`s personal retirement accounts. And that`s what I'm proposing. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC... 

From MSNBC

First of all, Al Sharpton doesn't belong on any serious program which I believe this MSNBC program intends to be covering political debates. Sharpton interviewing presidential candidates who are in these debates might as well have a National Enquirer or Hollywood Reporter up there instead. But this is the quality or lack of if when it comes to MSNBC right now, but perhaps thats a different post.

When Reverend Sharpton mentions that one of the purposes of the Federal Government, is to keep states from getting too strong, what he failed to mention or understand, is that we have state government's and states rights and a Constitution for one reason: from keeping the Federal Government from being too strong. And we have limited government to keep government in general from getting too strong. So the people can have their individual freedom and not be harassed by government. 

Also, picking the panel that MSNBC did from the left with Gene Robinson to the Far-Left with Al Shaprton, to cover a Republican presidential debate, would be like FNC picking Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, moderated by Sean Hannity, to cover a Democratic presidential debate: they might have all been wearing signs on their heads (or bags) that said: "We hate Republicans and are here only to screw them." Very bias, to put it mildly. Of course they are not going to like what these Republicans have to say. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Show & Tell: Limiting Campaign Contributions?'

Source:Russia Today-The Sexy Blonde?

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"We told you about Republican Presidential Candidate Buddy Roemer who has capped his campaign contributions at $100 so that no special interests can interfere with his political message. Find out if our viewers think Americans should be limited in how much they can donate to political campaigns? Now we want to know with the economic and political turmoil which has rocked the European Union, do you think the EU as we know it, will survive the next couple of years?" 

From Russia Today  

For anyone who is actually familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court and the current ideological makeup of the court and is actually interested in fixing the American campaign finance system, I have some suggestions that could not only pass Congress (because it would hurt both parties and both chambers) but could also stand judicial scrutiny, because it would also be constitutional. 

My plan is not only constitutional, but it would actually fix the problem, which is not common in Washington, perhaps especially in Congress: full-disclosure on all political financial contributions to all incumbents and candidates. Every Federal incumbent and candidate would have to report all of their political contributions (within 24 hours) to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and post those contributions on their campaign website. Incumbents would also have to report their contributions on their official websites, as well as current elected office holders who are running for another office. 

And then you have to eliminate all partisan gerrymandering in the U.S. House and require the states to draw up their U.S. House districts that represent their state, not what's in the best interest of the current party in power in that state. 

The left-wing in America will never be able to outlaw private money and contributions to political campaigns. I believe honest, intelligent leftists, actually understand that. And they don't want full-disclosure, because American voters will see just how Far-Left and controversial they are. But again if government is about problem solving (with the current political situation you would have to be high and drunk to believe that) this is a solution that could actually fix the problem. 

Al Jazeera: Nazanine Moshiri- 'Somalia Famine Spreads Beyond Reach of Aid'

Source:Al Jazeera- reporter Nazanine Moshiri.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a free-to-air international Arabic news channel based in Doha, Qatar that is operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The channel is a flagship of the media conglomerate and hence, is the only single offering to carry the name as simply "Al Jazeera" in its branding.

The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia 

"Famine has spread to a sixth area of Somalia and tens of thousands of people have died as a result of severe food shortages, the United Nations has said." 

From Al Jazeera

If you look at what nation building is and what it's supposed to be, go into a country thats never really been a country, with a government thats capable of governing the country in a responsible way. Somalia being the perfect example of that.

Nation building at its best, looks something like the Balkan region, where NATO, the European Union and the United States to a certain extent, took out ruthless dictators and terrorists who were murdering people because of their ethnicity: Albanians, Bosniaks, Serbians, Croats etc, and then sent in supplies and resources and gave them to the responsible people of these new countries, to build their new countries. 

In the African Horn thats prone to terrorism and is very diverse ethnically with different peoples that don't like each other. The good news is that they don't have an authoritarian regime like the Assad Regime in Syria. The bad news is that they don't really have a government of their own at all that can defend and govern this large country. And they are going to need an international coalition that can help them get there. 

And this is where the African Union and Arab League, can help Somalia, is right in their region can help. And the European Union, NATO and the United Nations as well as the United States with resources can be a big help as well. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Interviewing Gerard Dumenil: 'The Crisis of Neoliberalism'

Source:The Real News- The Great Depression.

"Dumenil: Neoliberalism imposed a new discipline on worker, cutting the progress of purchasing power. Watch Pt.2 of this story at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

From the early 1930s to the late 70s, progressivism pretty much ruled not only America while democratic socialism ruled the rest of the developed world. With Classical Conservatives like Senator Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964, breaking in to a certain extent to offer a new agenda a new politics that was about individual freedom. Economic and social freedom that was about lowering taxes and regulations and letting people live their own lives. And do for them what government was doing for them up to a point.

But of course Senator Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson in 1964, but did manage to lay down the building blocks for the conservative movement. That came into power in the late 70s and Ronald Reagan did become Governor of California in 1967 and reelected in 1970. And almost won the Republican nomination for President in 1976 and I believe would've been elected in 76 against Jimmy Carter.

Then you have the Thatcher Revolution in 1979 in Britain, the Reagan Revolution in 1980 in America. The Brian Mulroony Revolution in Canada in the 1980s, you had all of these conservative revolutions happening in the West. The Helmut Kohl Revolution in Germany in the 1980s. 

And you saw all of these conservative government's come to power in the West. And not exactly because all of these Conservatives came to power, but also the economy's in the countries took off and became powerful again after stagnating in the 1970s. 

People did not vote these Conservatives into power because they hated the welfare state. But they did because their economy's were weaken and felt they were overtaxed and perhaps the government was doing too much. And wanted more freedom to live their own lives and take care of themselves.

Progressivism made its mark in America in the 1930s with the New Deal, as a response to the Great Depression. But not to destroy American capitalism, but to be a soft landing when people fell through the cracks and to provide a basic standard of living. 

And countries that used to be Communist Republics like in Eastern Europe and some of the Slavic States, saw these countries economy's take off. And decided that they wanted their economy's to look like that as well. Britain and Germany didn't go from being democratic socialist to American capitalist, but more socialist to European capitalist.

European Conservatives didn't destroy their welfare states, neither did America. But they did provide their people with more economic freedom. And then when Bill Clinton became President of the United States in 1993, Democratic Socialists I believed were expecting President Clinton to destroy the Reagan Revolution and bring back the high tax rates. And if anything expand the welfare state, which of course he didn't in eight years.

President Clinton with help from a Republican Congress, only created one new entitlement program in his eight years: the State Children's Health Care Program, but thats run by the States. What President Clinton brought in was a progressive economic policy instead that would be centered around economic freedom, low taxes, free trade, education, and a tight fiscal policy. With deficit reduction and balanced budgets and government being there to help the people who fall through the cracks. But help them get up not take care of them with Welfare to Work in 1996.

So when Democratic Socialists talk about "neoliberalism", they are actually talking about progressivism instead. (Classical liberalism, if you prefer) Which is different from socialism that had dominated western politics for about fifty years. That we as a country have moved away from. And they are not happy about that, they would like to see us go back to the future.

Thom Hartmann: Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders

Source:Thom Hartmann- Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on the Thom Hartmann Radio Show.

"Thom Hartmann hosts Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Part 1

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann 

Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) making some good points about when the nation is in crisis, whether it's an economic, national security, or a natural disaster, that the country should come together to deal with it and that you need a responsible and limited (as I would put it) there to take action against whatever the national emergency is. 

I believe my only disagreements with Senator Sanders and I'm sure Thom Hartmann as well, is how government should respond to these issues and how they should be paid for. 

Senator Sanders and Mr. Hartmann will always lean on the side of government (especially the Federal Government) to deal with these crisis and that taxes should be raised on the rich, or just borrow the money from China to deal with the crisis, or gut the military to pay for government's response to these crisis's. 

I believe that since we are a country, even with a Federal Government that everyone who seeks or gets taxpayer services to deal with their own problems, should pay for the services that they get. And that the people on the ground themselves, including the state and local government's should get the first response and responsibility to deal with their own issues, as well as the individuals themselves. 

What Senator Sanders and Mr. Hartmann would do instead or Uncle Sam (or in this case Uncle Bernie) with his topdown, big government, nationalize approach to dealing with every issue known to man, or making up new issues that they believe that big government should deal with by itself. At the expense of all of his nephews and nieces across the country.

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Buddy Roemer: President Without Special Interests, Free To Lead'

Source:Russia Today- Governor Buddy Roemer (Republican, Louisiana) 2012 presidential candidate.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Former Governor of Louisiana and Republican Presidential candidate Buddy Roemer joins the show to discuss how he's been left out of the debate, his jobs plan and his stance on foreign policy." 

From Russia Today

To start on a casual note: if you look at Buddy Roemer and Senator Tom Coburn two men I respect a lot and I'm not saying this to put either of them down. And you know who both of them are, you seen and heard both of them, you are fairly familiar with both of them. You would think that they are a lot alike and perhaps even related and I believe would at least make a very interesting GOP ticket in 2012. 

Tom Coburn and Buddy Roemer both pretty much represent what the Republican Party used to be: fiscally conservative pro-military, but only use it in our national interest, pro-federalism, that the Federal Government should live within its means and within the U.S. Constitution. Something they both believe that the Federal Government has moved away from. They both believe, I believe except for abortion, want Americans to be able to live their own lives. They are both Classical Conservatives what used to dominate the Republican Party up until twenty years ago or so. 

Thats why former Governor Buddy Roemer and now private businessman and Republican presidential candidate, can't get into the GOP presidential debates, because he's not a Religious-Conservative or a Neoconservative that dominates the Republican field right now. Except for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and, John Hunstman. To a certain extent Newt Gingrich who's apparently lost all of his political skills which is a shame because he used to be a great politician. And I mean this in the nicest way possible. Might as well call Newt an asshole, Derik) But he's apparently lost the ability to communicate without offending the Republican establishment and communicate his ideas. 

But only Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney if you listen to the  political analysts, have a credible shot at winning the presidential nomination. And then there's Mitt Romney who I call Mr. Fair Weather Candidate: if it works politically, he's for it. But you get rid of the entire of the entire Republican field and just leave in Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and Roemner and perhaps throw in some more candidates like them, you have a hell of a Republican field, because they would be liked economically and not scare Independent voters on social issues. 

Buddy Roemer represents what the Tea Party used to be before it merged with the Religious-Right, when it started out, the Federal Government is too big, spends too much and they want it out of our lives. And just be there to protect us and when we need, but not try to control how we live  And especially don't bail out people can companies that failed and hurt the people and laid them off because they don't know how to run a business. And of course I'm thinking of TARP on 2008, awarding bad behavior as they see it. They were anti-corporate welfare, that all companies should be able to succeed or fail on their own, etc. 

But since the Religious-Right still dominates the Republican Party and to a certain extent Neoconservatives still have influence there, the Dick Cheney's of the world, candidates like Buddy Roemer, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman, can't even (except for Ron Paul) get enough respect to even be included in the presidential debates. But Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are, because of who now runs the Republican Party today. 

If this is 1988 or even 1992 and let's say Democrats control the White House (for a minute) Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and Roemer would all be considered the leading candidates to win the Republican nomination. Because they would all fit in very well with what used to be a Classical Conservative Republican Party. Not a Religious or Neoconservative Republican Party that we see today.