Al Jazeera: 'Venezuela Vote Result Could Impact Latin America'

Source:Al Jazeera- interviewing Pablo Pastro for this piece.

"Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is campaigning ahead of next Sunday's presidential election, where he hopes to be voted in for another term in office.  The vote will be crucial for the future of the oil-rich nation.   But the result could also affect many people far beyond Venezuela's borders, as the budgets of several Latin American countries factor in aid from Chavez's government.  Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman reports from Caracas." 

From Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], "The Island")[3] is a state-owned[a] Arabic-language international news network of Qatar. It is based in Doha and operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The flagship of the network, its station identification, is Al Jazeera.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[4] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the government of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence.[5][6] In June 2017, the Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and Egyptian governments insisted on the closure of the entire conglomerate as one of thirteen demands made to the Government of Qatar during the Qatar diplomatic crisis.[7] The channel has been criticised by some organisations as well as nations such as Saudi Arabia for being "Qatari propaganda." 

From Wikipedia

I'm obviously no fan of Socialist President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. But it seems from this Al Jazeera piece (which is no right-wing news organization) that the Chavez Administration (if you want to call it that) has been giving way their oil and gas for free, to other Latin American countries with socialist government's, like Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because their ideological allies. That's Venezuelan money that was created in Venezuela, bye Venezuelans, that should be going into the Venezuelan economy, for the Venezuelan people, that instead is going to Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because those countries have socialist government's.

Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:WNYC- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern.Bernie Sanders of his generation.

Source:The Daily Journal

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg

SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor

But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From Daily Kos

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Joseph Hewes- Conservative Barry Goldwater vs. Socialist Norman Thomas 

From  Joseph Hewes

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

The Newsroom: Will McAvoy: 'RINOS Are The Real Republicans'

Source:Sree Kumar- the cast of HBO's The Newsroom.

Source:The Daily Journal

"This post may seem wildly dated, in that it takes up an American sitcom that first ran from 2012 to 2014 — but stick with me for a moment, and maybe it’ll seem topical again.

I first watched the The Newsroom in India, in re-runs a year or two after it first broadcast, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Notwithstanding criticisms from many reviewers, including some I usually agree with, about ineptitude, intellectual snobbery and worse, to me it seemed one of the smarter, more articulate of American comedy shows, with an interesting focus on what one might call “larger” issues.

Even before I watched the TV show I had, like pretty much everyone else who uses WhatsApp in India, seen an excerpt which went viral, at least in my country. It was labelled, “The Most Honest 2 Minutes on American TV”, or something on those lines. Just icymi, in that clip (viewable here), drawn from from Episode 1, Season 1, an American university student innocently asks a panel including key protagonist Will McAvoy the leading question, What makes America the greatest country in the world."

From Kay Sree Kumar 

This is from HBO's The Newsroom episode when anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are the real Republicans. And the fake Republicans are actually populist Tea Party and the rest of the Populist-Right in America. 

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as anchor of The Newsroom Will McAvoy.

Another look at the episode from HBO’s The Newsroom where their anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are actually the real Republicans. And the populists are the fake Republicans.

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as the anchor of The Newsroom.

I'll be honest, I'm not a regular viewer of HBO's Newsroom, but I've seen a few scenes of it. And what I've gotten out of it, is the anchor of this Newscast, is an admitted Republican. A Conservative Republican even, but a Republican in how the Republican Party use to be. 

Will McAvoy Republicans tend to be well-educated, intelligent, believe and reason and facts, are religious even, but believe in factually based evidence and facts and don't let their religious beliefs runs their lives for them, especially when their religion goes against facts and evidence.  

The people that I'm guessing Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) believes are the real RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are people who are so hard-core with their religious and culturally based, nationalistic even political philosophy, that they are the people who are the real RINOS, because they don't believe in facts and evidence, just their political fundamentalism. And screw off facts and evidence, when they go against their partisan politics. 

Salon: Steve Kornacki: 'Sorry, It’s Not Mitt Romney’s Fault'

Source:Salon Magazine.

"The election is just over a month away, and only now is a leading conservative publication stepping forward to tell Mitt Romney that the premise on which he’s built his entire presidential campaign is wrong.

The Romney campaign’s assumption has been that economic anxiety will have swing voters in a firing mood in November, and that their desire to punish Barack Obama will push them into the GOP nominee’s column. But as a National Review editorial that went up last night points out:

What Romney has not done is address the major problem he has in making the case: the shadow of the George W. Bush years. Americans are more likely to blame Bush for the financial crisis that started on his watch than to blame Obama for the slow recovery from it. And even before the financial crisis, the last period of Republican governance was not especially good for America’s middle class.

It’s a valid assessment. Plenty of evidence is now available that Obama is benefiting politically from the public’s memory of the 2008 meltdown that played out on Bush’s watch, with voters willing to weigh current economic conditions against the catastrophe that was in full swing as Obama took office."

Source:Salon Magazine

Wow, the second time in the last two weeks I'm sort of standing up for Mitt Romney. But its true, Mitt is 20-30 years past his time as far as the Republican Party as it stands today, is not the Republican Party that Mitt grew up with and was a member of as a young man and as an early middle age man and someone who was finally elected to public office in his mid fifties in 2002. 

What's called the Republican Party today, (that in many cases doesn't even believe in American Republicanism) is now a Far-Right party, that sees Americans of today as Un American, if they don't look at the world the way they do and people who don't belong. 

In America, the so-called Republican Party, is no longer a big tent party, that can win all across the country. It instead is essentially made up of people, who are aren't accustomed to being with people who aren't from their community and see these people as Un American. And Mitt finds himself having to try to appease to these people, while looking sane and tolerant to the rest of the country and it's just something that can't be done. Because the fringe he needs to vote for him, are completely different from the rest of the country and its sort of an either-or proposition. You can't please both.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: 'Roseanne Barr Says Nationalize The Banks, Just Like Iceland, To Fix Economy'

Source:Russia Today- comedian/2012 presidential candidate Roseanne Barr, talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] 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 is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] 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.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with 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),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

"Actress & Activist Roseanne Barr, Peace & Justice Party candidate for President, talks to Thom Hartmann about drones, legalizing medical Marijuana & how to rebuild the economy." 

From Russia Today 

So according to the Far-Left in America, the best way to be taken seriously in America, is to run a comedian for President and have that person be interviewed by President Vladimir Putin's state TV in the Russian Federation. 

This is sort of the old theory of the best way to lose weight, is to eat nothing but fried chicken, pizza, and potato chips, and drinking nothing but beer, with the only exercise that you get is walking from your couch to your door to pay your delivery man or woman, or walking from your couch to the kitchen to get another beer or more food. Actually, I''m not aware of anyone having that theory to lose weight. But that makes as much sense as running a comedian for President, in order to be taken seriously in American politics. 

As far as comedians go, I think American Socialists could do a helluva lot worst for a presidential candidate. Roseanne Barr even seems to have her own political platform and perhaps have spent some time (in-between jokes) about the issues that she cares about. 

The main reason why we don't have an organized socialist movement in America (even though we have plenty of Socialists) is because Socialists and leftists in general don't believe in organization. Except when it comes to big government and running other people's lives for them. But to get that type of power, you have to be organized politically, first. 

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico: 'Why Do the Craziest Religious People Get the Most Attention?'

Source:AlterNet- columnist Valerie Tarico.

“There’s no question that religion can have some ugly moral and social consequences. The homophobic and misogynist attitudes of many American Evangelicals come straight out their sacred texts. So do the Islamic concepts of “dhimmitude” and jihad. So does the Jewish notion of favored bloodlines. So do Mormon and Scientologist recruiting practices. The Bible prescribes the death penalty for thirty six infractions, ranging from childhood disobedience to marital infidelity to witchcraft. The Quran contains over a hundred verses sanctifying the slaughter of infidels in one context or another. I’ve argued in the past that religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, but in a world of complex causation, one where straws sometimes break the backs of camels, that may be a distinction without a difference. The fact is, putting God’s name on Iron Age morality contributes to Iron Age behavior.

There also can be no question that, in this regard, not all ideologies are created equal. Religions differ in their history, teaching, and priorities, and consequently in how readily they are leveraged to justify oppression or violence. To name this month’s most salient example, Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy, combined with a prohibition of images, means that some Muslims are uniquely likely to flare when testosterone gets ignited by blasphemous pictures. The Onion made this point recently with a graphic cartoon depicting Jesus, Moses, Ganesh, and Buddha engaged in sex, beneath the caption, “No One Murdered Because of This Image.” 

From the AlterNet

“In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher addresses Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law and calls on moderates of all religions to come out against fundamentalism.”

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on religious fundamentalism.

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

“Religious fundamentalism: sexier than Catholicism”

Source:FreeState MD- a woman who is perhaps out of this world.

Probably the same reason why the craziest Atheists who want to outlaw religion, because they are crazy and don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t want to hear about someone, stop talking about them and you’ll hear less.

I like this article in the AlterNet, (perhaps the only article I’ve ever liked by the AlterNet) because Valerie Tarico takes on fundamentalists from all religions. Not just Evangelical Christians, which is what today’s so-called Progressives (the Far-Left really) only focus on:

“Christian-Conservatives, are evil bigots, because they put down women and gays. Conservative-Muslims, are good decent people, who are simply misunderstood. And when they do and say bad things, it’s America’s fault.” Which is generally the attitude that you get from the Far-Left. Which is what the AlterNet is, a clearly left-wing, if not socialist publication on the Far-Left. But with what you get with Valerie Tarico, is religious fundamentalism is bad, even it comes from non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.

If religious fundamentalism and bigotry that comes from religious fundamentalism, is a bad thing like gays aren’t real humans, or are mentally handicapped, or women’s place is in the home, etc, then religious fundamentalism is bad period. Doesn’t matter the religion, the race, ethnicity, or color of the people.

If you’re going to put down the Christian-Right when one of their members murders a man simply because he thought that guy was gay, because he had a feminine voice and demeanor, then you can’t defend that same behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government.

The debate about religious extremism shouldn’t be about race, ethnicity, color, or a specific religion. Unless you’re simply bigoted about one race, ethnic, or religious group. To coin a phrase from the great movie about Watergate All The President’s Men: “Follow the money.” Or in this case follow the bigotry. When the Christian-Right behaves badly, sure, go after them. But when Islamists behave badly, don’t call people who criticize that behavior bigots simply for criticizing bad behavior.

Stupid people, unfortunately come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, ethnicities, religions and genders. Which makes them harder to deal with, because they can hit you at anytime from anyone. No race, ethnicity, religion or gender, has a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry. Which is too bad, because it would be easier to deal with and eliminate:

“Hey, now that we know what all stupid look like, lets just focus on them and put the bigoted morons away.”

You can’t do that with a mental disease like stupidity, simply because we don’t have enough prison and hospital space to house all of those morons. And given these facts when you just concentrate on the bigots from one religion and race of people, while you ignore the bigots from another religion which just happens to be the largest religion in the world, being Islam, you give away get out of jail free cards to a lot of people. Who are just as bigoted as the Christian-Conservatives you don’t like. Which is stupid in itself. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

HLN: Showbiz Tonight- Countdown: 'Best Burnett Ever!'

Source:HLN- From Showbiz Tonight. 

Source:The Daily Journal

"The cast of the "Carol Burnett Show" including Burnett herself countdown the show's best moments on Showbiz Tonight."

From HLN

Source:The Daily Review- The Carol Burnett Show, being honored.

One of the best variety comedy shows of all-time, sort of like a half-hour Saturday Night Live. Speaking of SNL: SNL gets a lot of credit for being such an original variety skit-comedy show that other shows have tried to follow and make their own versions of it. And all of that is true, but Carol Burnett, was essentially the same thing, but came out 6-7 years earlier in the late 1960s, instead of 1975 with SNL and was on CBS instead of NBC. And you could make a case that Carol Burnett herself and her show with his her great cast and writers, inspired shows like Saturday Night Live and later In Living Color, MADD-TV and other skit comedy shows. Because of how good it was, how original it was, the topics it covered. That it wasn't about sending a political, or cultural message, but about making fun of everyday American life.

The Carol Burnett Show, covered and had everything and they weren't about politics at least in the sense they were trying to push some political message. It was simply about entertainment and what was going on in America at the time especially as it related to pop culture. And always looking for the funny side of everything they covered. They mad fun of politicians, movies, TV shows, actors, musicians, weren't worried about political correctness and pleasing everybody. But great comedians who all had similar sense of humors, great chemistry, who liked each other loved working with each other. And in that sense at least it reminds me of Seinfeld and was better than Saturday Night Live, that generally looks at politics from a political slant. Carol Burnett, was simply about making people laugh and doing it in a classy way and having a great time at it.

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: 'The GOP Idea of Freedom'

Source:Thom Hartmann's Big Picture on President Vladimir Puttin's Russia Today.

"Thom Hartmann will be leaving The Big Picture TV show (on RT TV and Free Speech TV) at the end of September. We’ve had a great run with The Big Picture and earlier this summer we decided to discontinue that evening show so we could focus more directly on our daily 3-hour midday show, The Thom Hartmann Program. 

Having complete editorial control over a TV show syndicated internationally into more than 700 million homes was a great (and rare) opportunity.  We worked hard not to do "sports" or "soap opera" when covering politics, and instead focus on issues; we believe we accomplished a lot in that regard.  We're grateful to RT for the opportunity, and for fully honoring our contractual independence at all times.

You’ll still be hearing and seeing me on The Thom Hartmann Program, which is growing weekly in the noon-3 PM ET daypart." 

From Thom Hartmann

"The GOP Idea of Freedom" 

From The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] 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.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with 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 (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

"Thomas Carl Hartmann[1] (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator.[2] Hartmann has been hosting a nationally syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, since 2003 and hosted a nightly television show, The Big Picture, between 2010 and 2017" 

From Wikipedia

Salon Magazine: 'Could Mitt Romney Take Paul Ryan Down With Him?'

Source:Salon Magazine.

"Grumbling from conservatives about Paul Ryan’s muted presence in the White House race could be a positive development for the Wisconsin congressman’s long-term political prospects. But it’s also possible that Ryan will end up ruing the day he accepted the offer to team up with Mitt Romney.

When Ryan was picked, many on the right hoped that the GOP ticket would run on Ryan’s budget blueprint, which calls for radical tax cuts for the wealthy, sweeping reductions in the federal social safety net, and the transformation of Medicare into a quasi-voucher program.

Instead, Ryan has been forced to present himself as a generic vice presidential candidate, disowning his own program and running on Romney’s intentionally non-specific platform.  This puts him in line with the Romney brain trust’s conviction that the weak economy will ultimately prompt swing voters to turn on Obama and that Romney will best be positioned to capture their votes if he’s seen as a competent but inoffensive protest vehicle." 

From Salon Magazine 

I hate to sound cliche and act like some cliche TV news reporter who at the end of his piece, doesn't have the answers to his own story and simply ends it by saying like: "Only time will tell. Back to you, Bob in the studio." but we'll know in about 6 weeks from now. 

If President Obama win reelection in a modern blowout, 10 points or so in the popular vote and wins North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri, to go along with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and Florida, then of course both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will get a lot of well-deserved blame for that. You don't believe me, just look at Geraldine Ferraro's political career post-1984, after she ran with Walter Mondale, who was a destined landslide loser to President Ronald Reagan.

But if Romney-Ryan come close, maybe we don't know who won the election until Wednesday of that week or something like that, Representative Ryan would get credit for getting Mitt Romney very close to the finish line and adding a real spark to a pretty dull and sluggish presidential campaign.

Thom Hartmann: 'Thoughts On Freedom'

Source:Thom Hartmann hosting a discussion about freedom.

"Thom Takes calls from listeners/viewers who share what freedom means to them." 

From Thom Hartmann

CBPP: 'Mitt Romney Budget Proposals Would Necessitate Very Large Cuts in Medicaid, Education, Health Research & Other Programs

Source:Center For Budget & Policy Priorities with a look at Mitt Romney's budget plan.

"Governor Mitt Romney’s proposals to cap total federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and boost defense spending to 4 percent of GDP would require very large cuts in other programs, both entitlements and discretionary programs. 

This update of an earlier analysis is based on updated economic and budget projections that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued this summer and additional information that the Romney campaign has provided on his budget proposals.  The resulting estimates of the required budget cuts are somewhat smaller than the ones we released on May 21, but they are still very deep.

For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs.  But if policy­makers repealed health reform (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and exempted Social Security from cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage to meet Romney’s overall spending cap and defense spending target, then they would have to cut non-defense programs other than Social Security by 22 percent in 2016 and 34 percent in 2022 (see Figure 1).  If they exempted Medicare from cuts for this period, the cuts in other programs would have to be even more dramatic — 32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022.

If they applied these cuts proportionately, the cuts in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), school lunches and other child nutrition programs, and unemployment compensation would cause the incomes of large numbers of households to fall below the poverty line.  Many who already are poor would become poorer.

The cuts in non­defense discretionary programs — a spending category that covers a wide variety of public services such as elemen­tary and secondary education, law enforcement, veterans’ health care, environmen­tal protection, and biomedical research — would come on top ofthe substantial cuts in this part of the budget that are already in law, due to the discretionary funding caps in last year’s Budget Control Act (BCA).  By 2022, the cuts under Governor Romney’s budget proposals would shrink nondefense discretionary spending — which, over the past 50 years, has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent — to 1.8 percent of GDP if Medicare shares in the cuts, and to 1.3 percent of GDP if it does not.

These cuts would be noticeably deeper than those required under the austere House-passed budget plan authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI).  (Romney’s nondefense cuts are deeper because his proposal increases core defense spending — the defense budget other than war costs and some relatively small items such as military family housing — to 4 percent of GDP, while the Ryan budget does not.)  Over the coming decade, Romney would require cuts in programs other than core defense of $6.1 trillion, compared with $5.0 trillion in cuts under the House-passed budget plan."

Source:Center For Budget & Policy Priorities

The Romney budget is essentially the Ryan budget. But the way to save the safety net, especially Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and so- forth, is not by gutting them but making them real Welfare Insurance programs, only intended for the people who need them, self financed, so they don't put so much pressure on the rest of the Federal budget, including the national debt. And turning them over to the States to run, along with reforming the defense budget and tax code. There's the deficit vanishing and we can finally start paying down the national debt, once we obtain some real sustaining economic growth.

Lynn Stuart Parramore: 'Are You Ready For a Post Masculine World?'

Source:AlterNet columnist Lynn Stuart Parramore.

SourceThe Daily Journal 

"The sun began to set on traditional masculinity over 500 years ago – just around the time musketeers arrived on the battlefields of Europe. At first, the feudal knights scoffed. How unnatural, and worse, how unmanly to go around pointing ungainly, smoke-belching sticks at your enemies!

But soon enough, technology won out, and it was the knights who faded into obsolescence. Poets pined for the old masculinity, but the days when the brawniest ruled the land were numbered. Brains now counted. So did the ability to adapt to new technologies. Just ask Elizabeth I." 

From the AlterNet 

“There are a few things that happen when you attempt to travel the streets of New York with a bright yellow book that screams The End of Men under your arm. First, you get a lot of inquisitive stares. Some people snicker. When you accidentally leave the book on the counter of your morning coffee shop, the man who returns it to you points to the cover, giggles, and does a little jig.

But if you are the author of a book called The End of Men—with a man for a husband and a boy for a child—you get sticky notes left on your bedroom door. “My 6-year-old, to whom the book is dedicated, writes things like, ‘Only bullies write books called The End of Men,’” says author Hanna Rosin, whose 2010 Atlantic essay turned 310-page book hit stands this week. She clarifies: “He’s learning about bullying in school.”

Source:The Daily Beast- "It's not the end of men - but they're in trouble." From Hanna Rosin.

From The Daily Beast 

“Are we seeing an end of men and a rise of women? In our guest spot today Hanna Rosin author of The End of Men: And the Rise of Women, points out that women are no longer gaining on men they have pulled ahead of them. In her book she investigates the shifting power dynamics between men and women throughout every level of society and the implications it has on life events.

Check out an excerpt from The End of Men: And the Rise of Women and be sure to tune in at 3:40pm for the full conversation.

“Award-winning journalist Hanna Rosin argues that the transitional economy is ushering in a new era in gender relations, and explores how both men and women can adapt to our rapidly changing social and cultural dynamics.” 

Source:NBC News- Hanna Rosin's book.

From NBC News 

"Award-winning journalist Hanna Rosin argues that the transitional economy is ushering in a new era in gender relations, and explores how both men and women can adapt to our rapidly changing social and cultural dynamics." 

Source:The RSA- Hanna Rosin talking about her book.

From The RSA 

Warning: this article could be construed as politically incorrect by oversensitive tight asses. Actually, it probably will be.

Men, who needs them? A Far-Left pipe dream where men are not even welcome, or where masculinity disappears, or where all men are essentially gay. I find it ironic that people on the Far-Left who are so anti-male man-haters, tend to be somewhat dykish even and have masculine characteristics themselves. Even though they claim to be anti-masculinity. They see football, boxing, interest in cars, tools, gambling, checking out attractive women, and I could go on, but I have other things I would like to accomplish in my life, but they see all of these activities as somehow sexist. Even though a lot of American women, straight even, like football, boxing, cars, tools, gambling, etc and are some of the most feminine, beautiful and sexy women you’ll ever see.

It is not so much masculinity that the man-hating sexist Far-Left doesn’t like. Well, they don’t like masculinity, but it’s male masculinity and male heterosexuality that they don’t like. But if women are a Dyke, no problem, because she’s just being who she was born as. According to Socialists on the Far-Left who don’t like masculinity when it comes from straight men. 

You’ll never see straight men, or women who are to the right of Socialists, (democratic or otherwise) which is only most of the world, try to put down female femininity. Because we love women, especially straight women. At least coming from a straight man. We love who they are and how versatile that they are. That they’re cute, beautiful, well-built, funny, but they’ll also stand up for themselves and watch sports with the guys.

There are straight women who like sports and there are straight men such as myself, who like soap operas. If they’re funny, well-written, well-done and seem to have some broader point other than: "Who is Jake going to stab in the back now." Or whoever the character is. Without straight men and yes we tend to be masculine which is a common characteristic about straight men and something that straight women tend to like about us, we would have a country of gay men and overly adorable and feminine straight women who never grow up. We would be a national day care center and kindergarten class. With no one to fix the cars when they break down, police the streets, defend the country and so-forth. Because all the men would be makeup artists, or clothing designers. Well, I guess the dykes could handle the male responsibilities. It would be a strange universe where everyone who enters who use to live on Planet Earth would think they drank too much, or got too high the night before.

Mother Jones: Mitt Romney On Obama Voters & The Entitlement Society

Source:Mother Jones- catching Mitt Romney being honest on the mic. If you really want to catch a politician telling the truth, or at least being honest, cover him or her, when they don't think you are there.

"Editor's note: Mother Jones has now removed the blurring from this video. Click here for the updated clip:   

 • Mitt Romney on Obama Voters  

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." 

From Mother Jones 

What Mitt Romney is basically saying here, is that the people who will vote for President Barack Obama, are the people who believe that Americans shouldn't have to do anything in life, in order to live well and live a quality life. 

All of this leftism in the Barack Obama movement, might have been true in 2008 when the Far-Left of the Democratic Party (the real Socialists in the party) thought that then Senator Obama was one of them. But those folks, like The Young Turks, the Salon's, The Nation's, the Noam Chomsky's of the world, are now calling Barack Obama a moderate Republican, ideologically, a corporatist, a sellout. Militant Black Nationalists are now calling President Obama an Uncle Tom. 

When you are bad card player, or at least a losing card player, you have do go with the only card that you have left. The American people have basically made up their mind about President Barack Obama. They like the man, they think he's a good President, but not a great President, and that he's better than anyone whose tried to run against him. 

I think Mitt Romney, at least when he's being honest with himself, knows all of this as far as how Independent voters and Democrats feel about President Obama. And because of this, he's going with the only card that he had left in a weak deck, which is try to to make Barack Obama look like some Un-American radical or something. And we'll see if that works in about 6 weeks.

Russia Today: 'Wealthy Welfare UK to Freeze Benefits As Inflation Bites'

Source:Russia Today talking about British Welfare.

"Game Over UK.

I do Not own this Content, it belongs to Russia Today." 

From Sub Zero 703

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] 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.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with 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 (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

Republicans in Americans (assuming they are still capable of learning, probably not a safe bet at this point) should look at the British model when it comes to Austerity economics and look at how bad the UK economy is right now and perhaps reconsider if thats the model. If they want to push in the United States, that has an economy thats much better off than Britain's right now.

Laura Flanders: Pam Brown- On Occupy Student Debt

Source:The Laura Flanders Show- interviewing Pam Brown.

"We as a society view our monetary debts as a moral issue: We took out the money, we should have to pay it back. The problem with this logic is that the money we are giving the banks, financial institutions and our government never existed before the interest we incurred piled up. 

Pam Brown of the Occupy Student Debt Campaign and Strike Debt says there's another way out of our predicament: If our numbers are large enough, we can collectively refuse to pay back the trillions that are being extorted from us. Watch the full conversation with Laura Flanders and visit GRITtv.org to learn more."

Source:Laura Flanders

At risk of stating the obvious and perhaps introducing some people to common sense: if you don't want to be buried in debt (like mobsters who bury unfriendly witnesses) then don't borrow too much money. 

You should be spending your 20s and 30s building your career. Not looking for the cheapest, most dangerous place to live, in the most dangerous place and perhaps sharing that place with 2-3 other people (who are also buried in debt, or perhaps don't even have college degrees and work multiple jobs just to survive) because you are buried in debt and can't afford to live anywhere else, even if you actually have a good income.

Another risk at stating the obvious: college is  not free. Regardless of what any left-wing politician might tell you about having some plan to make college free for everyone, it never will be. Even if you have a scholarship, you have to go to that particular school and play sports there or be in some other program that the school values and complete it successfully, to keep that scholarship. 

I'm all in favor of making college affordable for everyone. But you don't do that by promising the world to everyone (which is what a 4 year college degree can get you) and telling them it's not going to cost them anything. You do that by making college more affordable upfront and empowering more parents to put money away for their kids college education, as well as telling students that if you serve your country one way or another, for a certain period of time, the government will wipe away your college financially. But you can't make something free that comes with a cost for everyone. 

Thom Hartmann: Senator Sherrod Brown: 'Not Your Eisenhower Republicans'

Source:Thom Hartmann- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas) 34th President of the United States.

"Thom Hartmann talks with Sherrod Brown, Senator Sherrod Brown

Bio: U.S. Senator (D-OH)

Website:Senator Sherrod Brown about changes in both political parties over the years." 

From Thom Hartmann

In case it isn't obvious enough, (and if it isn't, you were probably born last night, at least when it comes to American politics) today's Republican Party, is not even the Dwight Eisenhower Republican Party, let alone the Grand Ole Party. And in complete fairness, today's Democratic Party is no longer John F. Kennedy's party, the faction of the Democratic Party that I'm from. I completely agree with Thom Hartmann (for perhaps the first time this year) and Sherrod Brown, who I tend to agree with more often, on a lot of other different things.

CBS News: Mitt Romney: 'I Won't Round Up Illegal Immigrants and Deport Them'

Source:CBS News- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) sounding reasonable on immigration. But he also goes by Flip Flopper, so wait til tomorrow and you might get a different position from him.

"Mitt Romney on Wednesday said at Univision's "Meet the Candidates" forum in Coral Gables, Fla., that his plan for immigration reform "isn't to deport people."

From CBS News

Looks like Mitt Romney is on a "who can I offend next tour." Yesterday it was 47% of the country. Today it was Tea Part Nationalists on illegal immigration. The way he's going, whose going to be left to vote for Mitt, especially after his family votes?

Brave New Foundation: 'Law & Disorder- How the System Really Works'

Source:Brave New Foundation- Dennis Farinia, when he was on Seasons 15 and 16 of Law & Order. RIP

Source:The Daily Journal

"On Law & Order, everything makes sense: the police chase after violent bad guys, the accused get a fair trial, and justice is blind. But is that the reality in the United States? Watch this video to have your mind blown about how unjust our system truly is.

Produced with the partnership of the American Civil Liberties Union, Constitution Project, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

From Brave New Foundation

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. Their job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.