Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Al Jazeera: Venezuela Vote Result Could Impact Latin America

The Socialist Dictator of Venezuela may be getting kicked out of power

Joseph Hewes: Conservatism vs. Socialism- Barry Goldwater Debates Norman Thomas: November, 1961

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

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.

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. But they 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.

So you need, well a big government, according to 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.

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 Norman Thomas’s politics was about.
Joseph Hewes: Conservatism vs. Socialism- Barry Goldwater Debates Norman Thomas: November, 1961

Saturday, September 29, 2012

HBO: The Newsroom Editorial- Rinos Are The Real Republicans: The Tea Party Are Fundamentalists

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

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. People that Neoconservatives meaning what the Tea Party has become, call these Republicans Rinos", Republicans in name only. People who they probably view as Moderate Democrats or in their minds (or lack of them) as even worse, than Moderate Democrats.

People like Richard, Lugar, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg even, that haven't challenged Scott Brown in Massachusetts. And that could be viewed as, well "Massachusetts, is a purely leftist Democratic state, so its better to have a Republican in name only up there", again in their minds only. But what the anchor of the Newsroom is saying, these so-called Rinos, are the real Republican Party. The Party that produced Abraham Lincoln, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, John Rhoades, Ron Reagan, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Bob Michael and many other great Republican leaders. That this is how the GOP was strong and in power and didn't have an approval rating that was low as today's Congress.

I haven't heard an editorial from the Newsroom on what a "real Republican" is. But if we are actually going to label what "real Republicans" are and yes the Tea Party started this discussion and again I'm an unapologetic Liberal as well as Democrat and proud of, but I believe in having two strong political parties, at least two strong, but that's a different discussion, but as someone whose viewed the GOP past and present, this is what a "real Republican" is to me. Someone whose both an economic and fiscal Conservative, who believes in limited government, but not just limited government as it relates to the economy, but limited government period.

And limited government includes social policy. For example a "real Republican" seems to me wouldn't try to arrest someone for watching an adult movie or playing a role in one. Or trying to ban adult language in movies and music or wouldn't care if two men or two women involved in same-sex romances and are involved with each other or living together, adopting kids or even marrying each other. That this is not the business of the Federal Government, but that government is there to protect innocent people from the harm of others, not protect people from themselves.

"Real Republicans" believe in limited government, that government should only do for the people what the people can't do for themselves, or can't do for themselves as well. And that the best government, is the government thats closest to the people. "Real Republicans aren't Progressives, to put it mildly ,but they are Conservatives in the classical form. And when you have limited government, you keep taxes down only have regulations that are there to protect the innocent from the abuse of others.

And that states rights is about allowing the states to govern themselves and dealing with the issues that are close to home, as they see fit, as long as they are within the U.S. Constitution. And that the Federal Government's role is supportive. Rather than directive, but that limited government also applies to national security. That America has to be strong at home and abroad, but we also have to mind our own business.

The Republican Party that I just laid out, a Conservative Party, people who I would describe as "Real Republicans", is a party that use to exist, just as short as 20-30 years. But that party has died off and that started when the Religious Right came in about the mid and late 1970s and into power in the 1990s. And then combined themselves with Neoconservatives in the late 90s. And last decade and that's how the GOP went from being a Conservative Party to a Far-Right Neoconservative Party. At least at the grassroots level.
Scientarist: HBO's The Newsroom- RINOS Are The Real Republicans

Friday, September 28, 2012

Current TV: Viewpoint With Elliot Spitzer"For Right Wingers, a Last-Ditch Campaign Strategy, Prayer": What a Post Romney GOP May Look Like

I'm sorta off to a bad start with this blog, because this is not the Mitt Romney GOP, its the Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachmann GOP. Mitt Romney is like the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran but is President of a different Theocracy, when it comes to today's GOP, that yes to a certain extent. Is about religion but most of all its about a faith in an ideology, where political beliefs outweigh facts, we believe we can cut taxes and raise spending by trillions of dollars at the same time and that. It will work, even though its never been successful before or since, we believe that Iraq has WMD, even though we don't know where they are and can't find them and thats just a couple of examples. My Iranian reference goes to the fact, that the President of Iran, is a position and man without power. The President is more of an advisory figure or ceremonial but the real power in that country resides with a dictator, the Supreme Leader, whose name I couldn't spell or pronounce, if it. Was right in front of me and someone else pronounced it correctly, so I'm not going to take a stab at it, besides I would probably stab myself by accident, ha ha!. Mitt Romney is the Leader of the GOP but unless he does what the Far Right of the base wants him to do, he doesn't get any support.

If I had to guess, I would say that the GOP Leadership, not including their Puppet in Chief Mitt Romney. Have concluded that Mitt is not going to win, that his campaign is already DOA and that its just a matter of how much he's going to lose by and that they are giving him one more opportunity. To look like he can actually win, which is Wednesday night, that if there's no change in the election or Mitt bombs in the debate, that they are going to pull their resources out of the Romney Campaign. And concentrate on Congress, mostly saving the Republican House, especially if Mitt loses in an Electoral Landslide, because I don't believe they think Mitch McConnell can win back. The Senate with Mitt Romney losing, that they are going to cut their losses and focus on the House and it will just be matter of if Mitt makes that same calculation, that instead on focusing on. The Presidential Election, he'll instead spend campaigning for House and Senate Republicans, similar to what Bob Dole did in 1996 but we'll see.

Salon: Sorry, it’s not Mitt Romney’s Fault: Trying to Lead a Party of Children

Sorry, it’s not Romney’s fault

Wow the second time in the last two weeks I'm sorta standing up for Mitt Romney but its true, Mitt is 20-30. Years past his time as far as the Republican Party, the GOP as it stands today is not the GOP 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. This 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, its no longer a big tent party, that can win all across the country but 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 its just something that can 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.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Current TV: Joy Behar Show: Richard Belzer: "The Republican Party is not a Political Party, it's a Mental Condition": What Happens When You Leave The Children In Charge

I really would like to know what Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, assuming he's still alive somewhere. And what the hell, Dick Nixon even would think of today's Republican Party, a Party that actually has a pretty good history, that freed the African Slaves. Won the Civil War ended corporate monopolies and started regulating them, that gave us a National Highway System and if you think about it and just be real, gave us Civil Rights in the 1960s. Those laws don't happen without Congressional Republicans, more Republicans in Congress voted for those laws them Democrats or its about 50%, this is the party that opened up China and Russia. That ended those Socialist size Tax Rates in the 1980s, that ranged somewhere between 20-70%, that presided over the ending of the Cold War, how much credit President Reagan gets for that. Is a different discussion but it happened under his watch, what would these men that I mention, think about a party that coined the term, I don't want Big Government in my wallets or bedrooms. Think about a party that today wants Federal Agents tucking people in at night, to make sure no one is having fun, doing things they claim to be immoral. And wants to raise taxes on the Middle Class to pay for Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

I have a feeling what President Reagan would say, I've been to Russia and I know what Communists look like. I never thought I would seem them in power in America, thats not why we spend all of those tears, money and blood to stop and today's GOP looks like the Commies we defeated. Back in the day, Senator Goldwater would probably think he's in a different country and that this new country has borrowed our Constitution but they just aren't enforcing it. President Nixon would say something like, since when have Republicans become against clean air, President Ford might say, what happened to. The Conservative Republicans, I don't see many around anymore, Leader Dole might say, these are, the people I campaigned for in the South to get. Elected and reelected, I want a refund and then, If he ever saw that money, he would dedicate it to the World War II Memorial, the adults have left the building in the GOP and have never. Come back and this is what it looks like, when you leave the children in charge.

A party that use to be about Individual Freedom and not just Economic and Religious Freedom but Individual Freedom. And there's a difference, as well as Fiscal Responsibility, is now a party that believes everything should be on the table when it comes to Deficit Reduction, except for things. That could cost us politically, the military, Social Security and Medicare, the big free, a party that use to believe that Big Government is too big, is now a party that believes that. Big Government is too small and the problem with America, is Americans and they should be punished, they have become a party thats lacking in adult Leadership.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

RTAmerica: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: Roseanne Barr says Nationalize the Banks!: What Progressives Need to be Relevant

For all of the Socialists out there or perhaps people who prefer to call yourselves Progressives. But with strong Socialist, lets say tendencies, you have at least two candidates to choose from. The most well known of the two would be Jill Stein, who I kinda respect from the Green Party and Roseanne Barr of the Justice Party. But either one of them will probably be lucky to get 1% of the vote and even with all of these third party Progressives out there, President Obama is still likely. To get reelected at this point, with North of 50% of the vote and North of 300 Electoral Votes, unless we see some type of game change in the next forty days. Thats just the way it is, which is fine with me, part of that has to do with the monopoly that Democrats and Republicans have. On our Political System, where we really only have two choices as far as who could win the election but part of that is the weakness of the Progressive Movement, not so much at least in this. Case their ideas or members but the fact that they are so spread out and end up taking votes from each other, when what they need instead is one Progressive Party and they could even call it that. Or the Socialist Party, with an ideology thats common in lets say Europe rather then Cuba.

American Progressives have the voice and at least an economic message that can communicate to millions. Of Americans in this country, that could be a factor in American Politics, with an economic message that communicates to Middle Class Americans, that we are here on your side fighting for you and we are not here to take away your business or property but to help you have some. Security in your life and protect you from predators in the economy that would take away everything that you've worked for, we aren't going to take it away from you and we aren't going to let. Predators do it either but we'll protect you from people like this so you can live as successful as a life as you make for yourself and provide a Safety Net for you when you need it. They don't have a party that believes in Economic Progressivism, they don't get that from Democrats anymore. At least the Democratic Leadership and I'm not faulting Democrats for this, we are run by Liberals and Moderate Liberals and we are simply different.

Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr should be running on the same ticket and leading the Progressive/Socialist Party. Or whatever they would call it, rather then competing with each other, to get at best 5% of the vote but since they are running for separate Progressive Parties. They end up taking votes away from each other instead and is something that Progressives need to think about in the future. If they ever want to get into power.

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

Source:FRS FreeStates- Religious fundamentalism is certainly scary 
Source: AlterNet: Opinion- Valerie Tarico-Why do The Craziest Religious People Get The Most Attention?

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 social democratic 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 sam behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government. This 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.
HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Fighting Fundamentalism

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.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

RTAmerica: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: The GOP Idea of Freedom: How Progressives Come Up Short on Freedom

No offense to Thom Hartmann but Progressives don't have a great track record, at least not lately when. It comes to freedom, Progressives at least lately seem to have the idea, that freedom is the freedom for people to have to take care of themselves, because government would do that for us, at of. Course at our own expense, the freedom to not have to decide how much healthcare we need and who to pay to cover us, the freedom to not have to save for retirement, the freedom from having to listen. To nasty language, the freedom to not get unhealthy, because junk food, soft drinks, perhaps even tobacco and alcohol would not be available, I know some Progressives that believe that. Marijuana should remain illegal, even though marijuana legalization is broadly supported by Leftists, Liberals and Progressives alike and Progressives have even more weakness's when it comes to. Freedom or what I would call lack of freedom, in areas of how we can spend our own money, things like gambling and other forms of entertainment that they may consider insulting or bigoted. This is not freedom but its a lack of freedom, lately the Progressive idea of freedom, is for the people to have the freedom to not have to take Personal Responsibility with their own lives. To not have to take care of ourselves, because government is going to do that for us at our expense.

I could spend a whole blog laying out where Neoconservatives, where the far right comes up short when. It comes to freedom and they may even be worse then the far left but Thom Hartmann gave his critique about the right, so I'm going to right the counter critique, not to speak up for. Neoconservatives but just to point out the Progressives have weakness's here and its a little hard to here someone who believes that government has a role in preventing people from living. Unhealthy and actually be able to control what we eat, to try to ban things that are currently legal, because these foods and drinks are unhealthy, because of the hypocrisy in it. What freedom is, is the ability for people to have choices in how they live their lives and the ability to live their own. Lives as long as they aren't taking other peoples freedom away from them, because of how they live their lives. Not protecting people from making bad decisions with their own lives.

Current TV: The Bill Press Show: Mitt Romney's Weakness on Foreign Policy

The problem with Mitt Romney attacking President Obama on Foreign Policy, is that he's trying to beat the President at his own game. He's trying to beat him in an area thats a weakness for himself and that generally doesn't work, so what he does is criticize him, where his charges are accurate or not. And then when asked what he would do instead, he either only answers in sound bites or says things that makes him sound like President Bush and that tells voters. Wait didn't we do that before and look where that got us. Mitt needs to get back on the economy and stay there and layout a plan. That will generate Economic and Job Growth, that sounds better then what President Obama wants to do and only talk Foreign Policy, when it comes up or when he can develop his own Foreign Policy. And not borrow ideas from Neoconservatives.

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

Could Romney take Ryan down with him?

The answer is yes and here's why, remember why if you even know the answer to this of then Senator Jack Kennedy. Even though he competed for Adlai Stevenson's VP slot and lost but why the way that helped him, because Adlai was going to lose overwhelmingly anyway and since Jack Kennedy didn't run with him. He couldn't be blamed for Adlai losing as badly as he did and also remember, again if you know the answer to this of what. Representative Paul Ryan's reputation in Congress was before he was selected to be Mitt's VP Nominee, a straight shooter and someone who understood economics and the Federal Budget very well. But what has he been doing the last couple months, defending his record, as well as statements that he's made. About President Obama's record and called out on false statements he's made about both, this election was. Tied in early August when Mitt chose Paul and now the President has a clear lead, including leads in all of the battleground States, Paul has done nothing for Mitt as far as taking a lead in the election and. Giving him momentum, they are now down in Paul's home State of Wisconsin and the State where Paul Ryan went to college in Ohio and Paul was suppose to be able to help Mitt in both States.

As this election gets into the last couple of weeks or so, if it still looks like Mitt Romney is going to lose and perhaps lose big. Paul Ryan needs to think about breaking from Mitt, not dropping out but spend that time rebuilding his reputation and preparing for the future, perhaps as Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, instead of Chairman, if Mitt loses an electoral landslide and Democrats take back the House. But stop defending Mitt and attacking the President with false statements and concentrate on rebuilding his reputation, if he wants a future in the GOP.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Thom Hartmann Show: Callers Share What Freedom Means to Them: What Makes Me a Liberal Democrat

This is the perfect subject to blog about for me, because it goes right up my ally, in what Liberal Democracy and Liberalism is to me. What it means to be a Liberal and why I'm a Liberal, Individual Freedom, the ability for people and we are talking about adults, juveniles has less Freedom under law. And thats a good thing but the Freedom for free adults to live their own lives, until they take the Freedom of innocent people to live their own lives away. Thats what Freedom is and the number one job of government, if not only job of government is protect the Individual Freedom of free adults. And to expand the Freedom for people who deserve it but don't have it, because they simply don't have the Freedom to live their own lives, because they are dependent on Public Assistance to survive. That we are all judge at least under law, as individuals and not members of groups, what Dr. Martin King said, by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin and that includes. All Americans whether they are minority or majority and thats where I come down and covers everything from Economic Freedom, where we would have the Freedom to be as successful in life. Based on our production an qualifications, as well as Personal Freedom, where again we have the Freedom to live our own lives.

What I just wrote I believe would offend just about every Progressive and Neoconservative, who reads it. And I'm not trying to sound partisan here but Progressives and Neoconservatives simply have a more Statist approach when it comes to individuals, that government main job is to. Look after and protect people even from themselves and its the job of government to prevent people from making what they call mistakes, even if that means protecting people from themselves. Progressives as it relates to living a healthy lifestyle, controlling what we can eat and drink, as we've seen up in New York and Neoconservatives at it relates to issues like pornography. And homosexuality and unfortunately many others, they have different approaches but their goals are the same, use government to protect the people, not just the innocent from the guilty but the innocent even. From themselves at times so America is safe as possible.

If Progressives and Neoconservatives had their way, America would be at least the goal would be for America. To be a very safe and dull country, where Americans wouldn't be allowed to make mistakes, because our Freedom would be so limited, where Uncle Sam would have a lot of authority. In the country to protect Americans from themselves, thats not what Freedom is and what it means to live in a Liberal Democracy. Liberal Democracy, which is really what Liberalism is about, is the Freedom to even make mistakes, as long as your mistakes don't hurt innocent people.

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

Romney Budget Proposals Would Necessitate Very Large Cuts in Medicaid, Education, Health Research and Other Programs — Center on Budget and 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 fourth, 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.

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

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: AlterNet: Opinion: Lynn Stuart Parramore- 'Are You Ready For a Post Masculine World?'

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 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.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Mother Jones: Mitt Romney on Obama Voters & The Entitlement Society: How Government Should Treat its People

If you read my blog on a regular basis, you know I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney and don't go out of my way. To speak up for him and for the most part I critique him, because he says a lot of strange things, that to me makes him unqualified to be President of the United States, because it goes. To his lack of Leadership skills, he seems to feel the need to have everyone he feels he needs to vote for him, have those people like him and takes positions to get their support. Rather then just telling people what he believes and why he would be a better President then President Obama. But having said all of that, he has a point when it comes to Obama Voters and the Entitlement Society, a block of Progressive/Socialists people on the far left in America, that believe. Its governments job to take care of people who are unfortunate, who can't survive on their own, people who claim not to be not religious, have these strong Christian Values, thats its the job. Of people to feed the hungry, clothe the clothless, house the homeless, cure the sick and the people who are suppose to do all of these good works, are of course the government at Tax Payers expense.

These block of voters who are a fairly diverse group of people, have this notion that its governments job. To look after and take care of people, that people for the simple fact of being born, are entitled to enough quality food, an adequate home, enough clothes, an education. Healthcare, Health Insurance, a job, pension and so fourth most of the things that most of the country has to work for to actually obtain in society and even though none of these things. Are guaranteed for anyone in the US Constitution, they believe that everyone is entitled to them, thats simply not how government works, we do have a Safety Net in America. Thats funded by people who work and pay taxes, to help provide for the less fortunate but its not in the Constitution that we have to provide these things for the less fortunate amongst us. We do these things, because we've chosen to as a country and we are compassionate, not because we have to. The Safety Net could simply be eliminated by law, through statue.

The number one and perhaps only role of government is to protect our freedom and thats freedom across. The board, until we lose it by hurting innocent people and for the people who don't have freedom, lack the skills to take care of themselves, we empower them to get those skills, so. They can have the Economic Freedom that the rest of the country has, not to take care of them and expect nothing from them for the rest of their lives. But while we are assisting them in the short term, we empower them so they can be free from Public Assistance as well.

AlterNet: "Romney-Ryan, GOP Demand President Obama Stop Strengthening Welfare To Work Mandate"

Does Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan even believe in Welfare to Work or are they just disagreeing with President Obama to be disagreeable?

Saturday, September 22, 2012

RTAmerica: "Wealthy Welfare": UK to Freeze Benefits as Inflation Bites

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 they want to push in the. United States that has an economy thats much better off then Britain's right now.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Laura Flanders: Pam Brown- On Occupy Student Debt

Source: The Laura Flanders Show- Pam Brown-
Source: Laura Flanders: Pam Brown- On Occupy Student Debt

There's not a lot I respect about Occupy Wall Street currently. They started off as a legitimate movement of Socialists seeking progressive change that was going to take on Wall Street because of the bailouts that they got in 2008-09 after their bad behavior that led to the Great Recession. While the rest of the country got austerity for their hard work ( as so-called Progressives see it ) and early on they were pushing issues as what I would call their alternative agenda to what we see from.

How about a left-wing Tea Party today that was about universal higher education and forgive the debt of students and homeowners who were drowning in debt, to today they look like a bunch of Anarchists. Who send a lot of their members to jail when they get together and people like that don't tend to get taken seriously by Americans as a whole and tend to get written off as troublemakers. But going forward if OWS wants to be taken seriously as a social-democratic movement, they are going to have to find a way to communicate to people who aren't as far to the left of them politically. And I'm not talking about running to the middle or even left of center but an agenda that represents their agenda. That they can show the rest of the country that they can get behind it, because it makes sense and is not crazy.

Ever since really the mid and late 1960s, American so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really )whether they view themselves as Progressive or Democratic Socialists, have been struggling to build on the New Deal and Great Society. And even though we've had three Democratic President's since LBJ, including President Obama, they haven't had a President which is really what you need to pass an agenda like this. Just like you need a Conservative as President to pass a conservative agenda. Democratic Socialists haven't had that one President who is behind what they want to do, who believes in social democracy or democratic socialism. Who has a philosophy that's built around what can government do for the people, instead the Democrats who are Liberals who believe in private enterprise, fiscal responsibility. That there's a limit to the positive good that government can do for it's people. And Democratic Socialists have had a hard time staying relevant in this period as well.

Democratic Socialists have been pushing Single Payer Medicare For All, government health insurance for the whole country. But haven't had any success at the Federal level with limited success at the state level. Not a lot of Americans crazy about losing the health insurance they already have and like, to be forced to take Medicare as a replacement, Vermont and California might go the other way though. But higher education, something that most of the country can't afford on their own, you are talking about paying off a small house in the country or a condo in four years. Which is what it costs to pay for higher education but roughly 85% of the country has health insurance and are able to pay for it in someway. But higher education is an issue that affects the whole country and anybody who has kids or is thinking about having kids this is an issue they have to deal with.

What I believe Democratic Socialists should be doing going forward, is to offer an economic agenda that a lot of the country can get behind. Because it makes sense and doesn't sound crazy, it doesn't sound like some government takeover or something but instead designed to empower people to solve their own problems.

These are some of the issue that Jill Stein the Green Party presidential nominee has been pushing, things like a living wage that empowers workers without hurting employers.

Expanding job training for unemployed workers, empowering them to go back to school, eliminating tax incentives that send jobs oversees and encouraging companies to keep jobs at home.

And yes universal higher education a system that funds college for everyone that can't afford it on their own. Where all qualified students in America could go to college, whether they can afford it on their own or not and not be drowning in debt before or after they finish college.

This is how Socialists who prefer to be Progressives, could have more clout in America. I'm not saying they should abandoned their agenda that's more socialist and speaks to a much smaller faction of the country. But a living wage, universal higher education, student and homeowner debt forgiveness, job training, infrastructure investment, is an agenda that would reach a much larger percentage of the country and make Democratic Socialists real players in American politics again.

AlterNet: "Republican Retreat From Mitt Romney Grows As Democrats In Tight Races Surge"

Republican Retreat From Romney Grows As Democrats In Tight Races Surge | Alternet

Wow I actually agree with the AlterNet on something, Congressional Republicans need to be worried about Mitt Romney and I wouldn't get to close to Paul Ryan either. Who thanks to Mitt will see his stock go down, the Senate now leans Democratic thanks to Senate GOP Candidates and Mitt and Mitt might put the House back in play for Democrats as well.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The Thom Hartmann Show: "These Are Not Your Eisenhower Republicans": Todays GOP

I've been writing a lot lately about today's GOP, again as I'm going to call it because today's Republicans. In a lot of cases not everyone as I pointed out last night but a lot of them are only Republicans in name only, people who aren't crazy about Republicanism or even Democracy. If it gets in the way with their agenda, which is appealing to the Far Right that now runs the GOP. Today and I'm going to try to sound original here but I've been blogging a lot about this lately, so I'll do what. I cam but the thing is I've been hearing a lot of Constructive Criticism of today's GOP, from non Republicans lately, who actually like and still respect some Republicans, such as I and even work with them from time to time. But are just different ideologically and are not always able to work together obviously. Even from people like Senator Sherrod Brown a Progressive Democrat, who I'm sure has one of the farthest left records in Congress but at the end of the day is not a nut. And is also a legislature and is reasonable, who does have a record of working with Republicans, even with people like Senator Tom Coburn or Dr. No, he's a real life doctor, who probably. Has one of the farthest right records in Congress but is someone that people can work with.

What Senator Brown I'm guessing sees today someone who I believe is in his late 50s, from what I've read about him. Is someone who may remember the last years of the Eisenhower Presidency, started High School back in Ohio. During the Nixon Presidency, was already an adult by the time Gerry Ford became President, Reagan, Bush and so fourth. Grew up with an idea of what Republicans were, that this was the anti Big Government Party that use to be home to Libertarians. Government shouldn't be interfering with how Americans live their lives, until they interfere with how other Americans live their lives. That Economic Freedom is good and Socialism is bad and so fourth, that we have to be strong at home and abroad, that government closest to the people. Is the best government, that we need to be Fiscally Responsible and not run up huge debt and deficits. Senator Brown I'm sure doesn't agree with a lot of these things but probably sees them as legitimate policies, that a responsible party would believe in.

That GOP of then is basically dead and buried, Libertarians now have a Libertarian Party where, thirty years ago. The GOP would've been a nice fit for them but today freedom is not what the GOP is concern with but how Americans should live their lives, that they should live them the right way. According to Neoconservative Republicans, these are just some of the differences between the GOP that Sherrod Brown grew up with and the GOP of today.

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

Looks like Mitt Romney is on a who can I offend next tour, yesterday it was 47% of the country. Today it was Tea Party Neoconservatives on Illegal Immigration, the way he's going whose going to be left to vote for Mitt.

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.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Current TV: Michael Grunwald: The Takers vs The Makers, Who Pays Taxes: What Makes Economies Grow and Work

I'm going to go out of my way not to make this blog not sound like some Class Warfare argument, because thats not my politics left or right. And I simply don't believe in Class Warfare and thats all you need to know about that but if you hear today's GOP and I'm not even sure I want to call them Republicans anymore. Unless they are Republicans I actually respect and seem them as real Republicans and there are still plenty of Republicans I like and respect, so I'll talk about the Tea Party. And there not a lot of people in the Tea Party I respect especially as it relates to the economy today, because if you hear them talk about Economic Growth and not listen to anything else. Well first of all you'll be left out with at least half of the facts if not more but you'll get the idea that Economic Growth is driven by corporations and its executives and wealthy investors. That drive Economic Growth and perhaps to a certain extent Small Business and thats where it ends that the rest of us are lucky to have jobs and we have little to no impact on Economic Growth. When the fact is without labor and customers, we don't have any corporations or any Private Enterprise in the country.

Without executives and investors we don't have any Private Enterprise in the country as well but they are part of the package. Not the package itself and as far as who pays taxes, if you purchase things or work and get paid for a living, you pay taxes and in some cases the more you make. As an individual or business, the less you pay in taxes depending on how well you know the US Tax Code and how much influence you have over it, this is not Class Warfare but simple economic facts. Economic Growth is driven by demand and the supply which creates the work based on the demand, is depended on how much demand is out there, how much money do customers have and. How much they are willing to spend, thats Market Economics 101, as well as the quality of products that are being designed and produced, this is what creates Economic Growth that leads to Job Growth.

The new argument thats coming from todays GOP as it relates to taxes and the economy, that unless you pay Income Taxes. And they rarely mention the word Income which is a key word when it comes to Income Taxes, you are not a Tax Payer and you are some of moocher that sits on your rear end all day. Not producing something, when the fact is that anyone who works for a living or purchases items, is paying taxes and helping to drive Economic and Job Growth in this country.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Hezakya Madison: CBS News The Homosexuals: Mike Wallace's 1967 Documentary About Gay Life

Hezakya Madison: CBS News The Homosexuals: Mike Wallace's 1967 Documentary About Gay Life

The 1960s especially the late 1960s, was a very good decade for homosexual Americans. Because the country was becoming freer and more liberal as a country. We were becoming more free to express ourselves as a country, unlike the 1950s where the country was very conservative culturally. And where homosexuality was considered a sin, or a disease. We were sort of a big government statist country back then. Especially for a country that’s supposed to be a liberal democracy.

But the 1960s changed that with the Baby Boomers coming of age and Hippie Culture coming into our culture. Where people including gays were encouraged to be who they were and no longer hide who they were. That there was nothing wrong with being gay in public. That there was nothing wrong for men to be attracted to me and for women to be attracted to women. And for men to be feminine and for women to be masculine. That Americans gay, or Straight, should be who they are. Which of course pissed off religious and Neoconservatives in America who have this very narrow view of what it means to be an American. And that has nothing to do with being gay and today have to be expanded that to being that Islam is Un-American as well.

Freedom for homosexuals just expanded in the 1970s and 80s, where it became more acceptable and where you would see men wearing pink shirts in public. And women dressing butch in public and to the 1990s where we saw Gay Pride Parades. And that discriminating against homosexuals because of their sexuality was considered wrong. Just look at where the country was ten years ago on same-sex Marriage. Where the whole notion was considered some fringe idea, to by 2004 states like Hawaii and Massachusetts were passing same-sex marriage laws.

Vermont passed civil union Law in 2003-04, to today where roughly half the country, little more, or less supports the idea of same-sex marriage. Where even now the President and Vice President of the United States now support marriage equality. We’ve come thousands of miles in just the last few years when it comes to tolerance for homosexuals. I say all of this as a straight Liberal man who believes that all people have a right to tolerance and respect under law in this country. Until they lose that right by hurting other people. But as long as we are all good people, we should be treated as such, and not by who do we sleep with and are attracted to the opposite gender, or not. But instead we are treated by how we treat other people rather than what we do in our private lives.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Nation: Cornel West and Tavis Smiley's Poverty Tour Hits Virginia: The Causes of Poverty and How To End It

Poverty and issue we've been dealing with as a country for almost eighty years now officially. Since the Depression Generation was being born or what the generation from the late 1920s and 1930s is called. Has been a problem in this country for a long time, the lowest poverty rate we've had in this period is 13%, that we obtained in 1990s in the Economic Boom of that decade. And there are reasons why we've had a problem as a country and before you try to solve a problem like this, you. Should look at like a doctor dealing with patients, which is how come Joe or Sally are not feeling well, what are the symptoms and then figure out what the. Problem or problems are and then you can solve the problems. So why do we have so many people living in poverty, we simply have too many people who without the skills that they need to get a good job in this country, who either didn't finish school. Or didn't go to very good schools, so even if they graduated and now have degrees, they still don't have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job, because they didn't go to a. School or schools where they can those skills and they end up having kids who go through the same process and end up living in poverty themselves and probably with kids as well.

So what are the solutions, well for one we need a much better Education System in America, where we have universal access to good schools. From kindergarden through college, where everyone in the country has an opportunity to get a good education, where we no longer tolerate as a country bad schools. Or bad teachers because those things and people would either be reformed or put out of business but certainly would no longer be working with what they are currently producing. This means that every student in the country has access to a good education in America and of course what they do with that opportunity is up to them, you can't force students. To do the work and learn the material, every minor should have this opportunity and for adults who haven't had that opportunity yet, we empower them to go back to school and get themselves. The skills that they need to get a good job in the future.

Public Assistance as far as giving people in poverty financial assistance to help them pay their bills. Is a good thing but the fact is even with that Public Assistance if they aren't able to get themselves the education and job training that they need to get a good job. They are still going to be living in poverty but with a few extra bucks but if we empower them to get themselves the skills. That they need to get out of poverty, then they won't have to live off of Public Assistance in the future.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The Young Turks: Conservatism and the Republican Party: Granddaughter of Icon Barry Goldwater: Why The GOP Should Rebuild or Shut Down

I wrote a short blog yesterday on why today's GOP which is basically the our version of one of those Far Right parties that you see in Europe or Israel. They are not quite a Communist Party but perhaps we should give them some time but they are certainly a Right Statist Party that believes in Limited Freedom. Rather then Limited Government, that you sometimes see in Europe that from time to time gets to work in coalition with the Center Right Party thats in power, like in Germany or France. This is not Barry Goldwater or Gerry Ford or Ron Reagan's GOP anymore, todays GOP is the party of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Todd Aiken, Steve King and other Neoconservatives. Who see Americans who don't look at the World exactly as they do as Un American and even traitors, perhaps people who should be in jail or deported, who like to talk about freedom. But only like to talk about it, there idea of freedom is to essentially eliminate taxes and regulations on the wealthy and hope if that, that some how makes down to the rest of us and benefits. The rest of the country and Religious Freedom is really about Freedom for Christians to be religious and Individual Freedom is really about the Freedom for Americans to live their lives the way Neoconservatives want them to.

Thats not the Goldwater/Reagan GOP that they built up that believed in Economic Freedom and Fiscal Responsibility. But also believed in Civil Liberties, Workers Rights, Freedom of Speech, the Right to Vote, privacy, the US Constitution basically that Neoconservatives see as annoying or. Un American today even though it was written by Americans, this is a party that simply can't survive the long haul as a major Political Party, they will simply go out of business. As America becomes more Liberal-Libertarian on Social Issues and as we become more minority, people the GOP. Simply is going to have to appeal to in order to survive in the future, Florida is already a swing State and now North Carolina and Virginia are as well as more people move into these States. Who are either from different countries or from other parts of the country like the Northeast, perhaps looking to escape big city life.

The Republican Party has a future if it wants one but not on the road they are going down, thats a real Fiscally Conservative Party. But Fiscally Conservative across the board when it comes to the Federal Government, that believe in Economic Freedom but for everybody not just business's and. Is at least tolerant on Social Issues and that government shouldn't be interfering in peoples personal lives, that gets back to Federalism and States Rights and brings Libertarians and. Northeastern Republicans back to the party.

FRSFreeStateNow: Liberty Pen: John Stossel: Politically Correct History: What Libertarians Don't Understand About Workers Rights

FRSFreeStateNow: Liberty Pen: John Stossel: Politically Correct History: What Libertarians Don't Understand About Workers Rights

David Von Pein: Jack Paar Show: Robert F. Kennedy- March 13th, 1964

Jack Paar & Bobby Kennedy
David Von Pein: Jack Paar Show: Robert F. Kennedy- March 13th, 1964

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a few months after his brother President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Goes on NBC's the Jack Parr Show. I guess he wanted to get back to living a normal life, or as normal of a life that a public official can have in America and get out of the funk he was in from losing his brother and did it in a big way by going on Jack Parr. And trying to communicate to the world that he and his family were doing okay, or as well as they could be doing after seeing one of their family members assassinated. And Bobby Kennedy came back in a big way in 1964. RFK wanted to make his life worth serving again the only way he knew how outside of his family. By serving the public and being involved in public affairs. He was already Attorney General of the United States, but had other interests as well.

As Attorney General, RFK was influential in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. His speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, resigning from office right after that and running for U.S. Senate in New York. Where he wins there, partially thanks to President Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater with New York being one of those States. So Bobby Kennedy not only came back in 1964, but came back in a big public way that few other people would've been able to come back from after a tragedy. Like losing a sibling in the manner that he did. The Jack Paar Show, was perfect for RFK. Because Jack was a very funny man, but also up to date on current affairs and interested in them. And was Bobby Kennedy being a Kennedy with their famous wit and intelligence.

1964, was a very depressing and yet liberating year for Bob Kennedy. First, he was Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, but for a man he hated. President Lyndon Johnson, who was President Kennedy's Vice President. LBJ, not exactly best friends with RFK, but at least he let the Attorney General do his job. Unlike RFK who was always undermining any authority and responsibility that LBJ had as Vice President. But that is really a different discussion and perhaps debate, especially for RFK loyalists. RFK, didn't want to work for President Johnson and that is one reason why he decided to run for the Senate in 1964. And restore some freedom over his own personal life and career. And going on Jack Paar in early 1964, was the start of RFK returning to public life again.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

David Pakman Show: "Chicago Teachers Strike Enter Day 3, No End in Sight": Why Paying Good Teachers Well is a Good Thing

Paying good teachers well I don't believe is the problem, I believe even Conservatives could see why thats a good thing. Even if they are Public Teachers, especially in a city like Chicago of roughly 3M people, the third largest city in America, also one of the wealthiest cities in the country. They do a lot of things well and have a high cost of living as a result, if we can afford to pay Members of Congress. People who work half the year 150K$ a year, then we can afford to pay other Public Servants, people who work hard for a living, military personal, Law Enforcement Officers, scientists. Teachers six figures, as long as they are doing a good job that the Tax Payer investment that we've invested in them, is paying off for the community especially the students. Now paying bad teachers 100K$ a year when maybe half of their students knows what they are being teach or half of them graduate High School etc, is a bad thing for obvious reasons. We don't pay teachers so they can pay the bills, we pay them to do a job and when they are doing their job, their students are learning. Not some of them but the overwhelming majority of them are learning the subject matter and graduating High School and so fourth, thats a good investment.

As far as the Chicago Teacher Strike, I don't live in Chicago and not that familiar with that story. Other then what I've heard from National News sources and of course you have Progressives defending the teachers and Right Wingers bashing the teachers, they don't care about. The students and so fourth with is the Right Wing spin but it seems to me from a far, 1500 miles away, that September would be the worst time of the year to have a Teachers Strike. That these issues should've been worked out over the summer and during the last school year, because the only people. That get hurt in all of this, are the students who I'm sure most of them don't see that right now, except for maybe the nerds that are addicted to schoolwork or something. And it seems to me again looking from 1500 miles away that the teachers and the Emanuel Administration have forgotten that.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

RT America Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: "Will President Obama Accept Representative Paul Ryan's Challenge on Medical Marijuana?": Why The President Should Stand Up For Freedom of Choice

If you are a Federalist and you believe in States Rights, then you don't have a problem with States legalizing marijuana and Same Sex Marriage. You might not agree with it but you believe that the States should make these decisions themselves and leave the Federal Government to the issues. That only it can and should address, like the economy, trade, debt and deficit, National Security, Energy Policy etc and let the States figure out the Social Issues on their own. As long as they aren't legalizing things that can actually hurt people, like battery, terrorism, fraud that sorta thing. If you are a Socialist or a Statist from the right, you believe the Federal Government should be making these decisions themselves, that these are national issues, that only the Federal Government. Should be addressing so every time that President Obama goes the other way on these what I call Freedom of Choice issues as a Liberal, that the people themselves are better qualified to decide for themselves. Who we marry and what we can put into our bodies and what healthcare we can and should have, it feeds into the notion from the Far Right that he's a Socialist or Statist.

Democrats and Leftists in general so far have been willing to give the President a pass when it comes to Economic and Foreign Policy. And have concluded that he's done very well considering the hand that he's been dealt and the opposition that he's faced, its really the Social Issues where. I as a Liberal have had issues with him, Barack Obama is a Democrat and by a lot of counts before he became President, a Liberal Democrat who you would expect would go the right way. From our perspective as it relates to core issues of ours like marijuana, Same Sex Marriage, the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention and so far President Obama has a 1-4 batting 250. On these issues and if it wasn't for his Vice President coming out in favor of Same Sex Marriage back in May, would the President have done the same thing by now, had Vice President Biden. Not have made that decision for himself, we'll never know that of course but my bet being the safe politician that he is, he wouldn't of.

The President simply needs the left, Mainstream Left and Far Left to get reelected, he can't do it without us. And he's going to have to Leftist Presidential Candidates, in Gary Johnson whose basically a Classical Liberal running for President for the Libertarian Party. And Jill Stein a Progressive running for President for the Green party and coming out against the War on Drugs, doing the right way so he doesn't look he's appeasing us. Would go a long way for him in securing the Leftist Vote in a tight Presidential Election.

AlterNet: Uh-Oh! New Poll Suggests Rep. Michelle Bachmann May Be In Tight Race

Uh-Oh! New Poll Suggests Bachmann May Be In Tight Race | Alternet

Looks like the Mental Hospital has called and they want Michelle Bachmann back

Monday, September 10, 2012

RT America: The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann: "How & Why Other Countries have Ended the 2-Party System": How to Reform The American Political System

There are a lot of things that I like about the American Political System, I like the fact that I get to decide for myself. Who should represent me in Congress, who should be my Representative and two Senators, who should be the President and who should be the Governor, these are basic Liberal Democratic Values. That Socialist Democracies don't understand that feel the need to put the power in the hands of the parties to decide who represents who and what the voters get to decide. Is which party represents the people and in what office, rather then which individuals. We are simple more Liberal and individualist as some of these Socialist Democracies and prefer to have the freedom. To make these choices for ourselves as much as Progressives may hate this, what I don't like about our Political System, is our Two Party System, to me in a country this huge, thats situated between two large oceans, that is continental wide and a country of 320M people. That is as politically diverse as we are, going from Socialists on the Far Left, to Neoconservatives and Theocrats on the Far Right. Two large political parties, one thats made up of Liberals and Progressive/Socialists in the Democratic Party and the other made up of what's left of Conservatives in America. And Neoconservatives, a two major political parties is simply not large enough.

What we have in America is simply two parties that both have three parties in them, each party has like a mainstream base. And other factions that are more ideologically in sync with one of the major parties ideologically but ideologically a better fit to be in one of the third parties. But are with one of the major parties, for political reasons prefer to have a say in what they would call the better choice amongst two evils. So in the Democratic Party you have Progressives who are ideologically a better fit with the Democratic Socialist Party or Green Party or Progressive Party, like the Progressive Caucus but are Democrats so they can have a say in a Center Left party. Rather then a party thats much more to the left politically and in the Republican Party, you have Libertarians like the Ron Paul's who are Republicans so they can get elected and its really that simple. For Neoconservatives they've taken over the GOP and today's GOP is the home of Neoconservatism in America, people like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann.

What we need to do is keep our Direct Elections and not take the power out of the people to decide. Who represents them in Congress or who is President of the United States the most important job in the World but we need more choices, we need to break up the Two Party Monopoly . And allow for Socialists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists to have universal ballot access and require all Federal Candidates and Incumbents to have to get 51% of the vote to win the election in the first round. And then have run offs in the elections where someone doesn't get 51% of the vote, between the top two or three people in the race, until someone gets that 51%. As well as eliminate gerrymandering, so where we can end a lot of the slam dunk reelections that we have in Congress right now, so we have more competitive elections, as well as Full Disclosure. So we know whose funding our elections.

Thats what we can do in the short term, long term we need to break up the Democratic and Republican Parties a little bit. So Progressive Democrats can go home so to speak and become part of the Progressive, Socialist or Green Party or perhaps those factions form into one Progressive Party. That could compete with Democrats and Republicans long term and the Neoconservatives take a hike and form their own Far Right Party and we can get back to having a. Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, as well as a Progressive Party and a Libertarian Party in America, as well as a Neoconservative Party where we are represented across the board ideologically as a country.

Paddy Irishman: Eulogy of Robert F. Kennedy 1968: Senator Ted Kennedy on His Brother's Life

Paddy Irishman: Eulogy of Robert F. Kennedy 1968: Senator Ted Kennedy on His Brother's Life

Senator Ted Kennedy, gave the best line of the RFK Memorial. Where he quotes bis brother by saying that, “some people see things and wonder why, I dream things that never happen and wonder why not.” Which goes to the heart of Bobby Kennedy’s idealism. Bobby Kennedy, wasn’t a hopeless Utopian who saw things that were simply impossible happening and would put these dreams in simple terms. But what he would do is see problems that the country is facing and see us as a country the greatest and wealthiest country in the World. With the resources to solve a lot of the problems that we face, as solvable and that we can and should solve these problems.

Because we are simply too great a country not to confront these problems, especially as a developed nation with the largest economy in the world. It’s not that we don’t have enough resources to solve our problems, but that we simply don’t use the resources that we have to solve the problems that we face. That perhaps the problems that we have are part in due to the fact that we’ve simply misused some of the resources that we have as a country. And we would be better off instead destroying other countries in the name of defeating communism, that we would instead build our own country at home. Bobby Kennedy, loved America and wanted to create an America that worked for everyone. Where all Americans could live in freedom and not have to live in poverty, or under racial discrimination.

Friday, September 7, 2012

The Daily Beast: "Representative Dennis Kucinich Disappointed by President Obama's Jobs Record": Congress Losing a Progressive Lion

There's this old saying that when a politician is getting hit from both wings, left and right, especially the far left and far right. And both of these sides are disappointed with this person, that the person is probably somewhere in the middle and not extreme enough for either side, I'm paraphrasing this saying. But thats pretty close, thats a good way to describe Barack Obama, Progressives don't like President Obama because he isn't a Socialist, which is what they were expecting. Him to be when they threw their support behind in 2007-08, the far right especially Neoconservatives doesn't like President Obama, for several reasons. One because they believe he's a Socialist, two they believe he's a Muslim, three they believe he's an African Muslim, four they believe. He's an Illegal Immigrant from Kenya and probably don't even buy the fact that Barack Obama is half Caucasian and celebrates St. Patrick's Day because he's something like a quarter Irish. I swear most of Barack Obama's enemies and thats exactly what they are, are either current Mental Patients or escaped Mental Patients or former Mental Patients who are currently off of their medication.

I'm not saying that Barack Obama is a Centrist I definitely don't believe that but he's certainly not extreme either way. He's not a Socialist, he's not a Neoconservative and he's not a Corporatist, he's a Moderate minded Liberal, sorta in the classical sense as it relates to Foreign and Economic Policy. That government can't do everything as it relates to the economy, that it shouldn't be trying to run things or heavily taxing industries and individuals, so the Federal Government. Has more authority and revenue to take care of people but he's not an Economic Conservative either, that the Federal Government should have little to no role in the economy either. He believes that the Federal Government has a role in providing opportunity for people who don't have enough of it and need it, so they can get themselves the skills that they need to take care of themselves. So in this sense he's an Economic Liberal.

I call Barack Obama a Moderate Liberal not because as it relates to Economic or Foreign Policy but as it relates to Social Issues. On issues as it relates to National Security, Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, the War on Drugs, up until recently Same Sex Marriage, where he has more Big Brother leanings. Which are the main reasons why Liberal Democrats such as myself are unhappy with him. But President Obama is clearly not an extremist, either right or left.