MLB Classics: MLB 1986-ALCS-Game 5-Boston Red Sox @ Anaheim Angels: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

Perhaps the best MLB playoff game at least in my lifetime. And the biggest choke in my lifetime at least in MLB with the Angels blowing a 3-1 series lead with the opportunity to win the American League Championship at home with their offense, defense and pitching. And they simply didn’t close the door to a team they probably should’ve beaten at least in six games if not five. Wally Joyner not in the Angels lineup certainly hurt them in-game 5. But you got to know that they had the Red Sox beat in the ninth inning with their closer Donnie Moore who was lights out most of the 1986 season on the mound. He makes a bad pitch to Dave Henderson and that forces the game to extra innings. But Joyner would’ve been a big force in the Angels lineup in-game 6 and 7, when the Red Sox blew out the Angels at Fenway Park.

The Hampton Institute: Josh Hatala- 'The Socialist Party of America- A Historiographical View'

Source:The New Democrat- Multiple time Socialist Party nominee for President, Eugene Debs.

Source:The New Democrat  

"The Socialist Party of America: An Historiographical View." Originally from Joshua Hatala from The Hampton Institution, but the link for his article seems to have been deleted. 

"Russia Today host Thom Hartmann invited Libertarian Republic Editor Austin Petersen to debate the merits of San Francisco's city council voting to push chain store retailers out of the area. Hartmann questioned whether it was valid for citizens to vote if they don't want certain businesses in their area." 

Source:Austin Peterson- debating Thom Hartmann about socialism.

From Austin Peterson

Where I disagree with Josh Hatala on this where I could probably make this whole post about, is that there are still two somewhat viable democratic socialist parties in America: Democratic Socialists USA and the Green Party, as well as many leftist Democrats who are mainly in the Democratic Party for political reasons in order to get elected and be active in a major leftist party, even a center-left party. Socialism has failed as far as producing a major social democratic party that can compete and beat Democrats and Republicans on a regular basis.

But you got to know that U.S. Senator Bernie of Vermont (the only self-described Socialist in Congress) is a Socialist, as well as several members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, both in the House and Senate that Senator Sanders is a member of. But most of the members of the CPC prefer to be viewed as Progressives because of the negative stereotypes that come with being viewed as a Socialist or even a Social Democrat.

Socialism hasn’t failed in the sense that their ideas have failed or are considered too extreme. At least what would be viewed as mainstream both in America and in Europe that is democratic socialism, that combines both capitalism, a vibrant private sector, but that is heavily taxed and regulated to fund a very large welfare state to provide a lot of the services that people need to live well. From education to healthcare that is common in Scandinavia. A long with a safety net for people who are unemployed and so-forth.

That is basically Scandinavian or Nordic capitalism, which is the mainstream form of socialism in Europe. But even in America where capitalism was basically invented, we have a socialist component to our economic system as well in the form of our safety net for people who can’t take care of themselves. Who are out-of-work or can’t afford services that they need in order to survive like health insurance and food, even if they are working. It is just that our national social insurance system is a lot smaller in America than it is in Scandinavia.

It is not that so much that socialism has failed in America, because the democratic form of it that I just explained is alive and well. Just look at the popularity of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. All of which could and have been labeled specially by their opponents and proponents as well as socialist programs. 

It is Marxism or Marxist socialism, where the state essentially is responsible for running the entire economy and to large extent the people’s lives, that has failed everywhere that it has been tried. Which is why most of the world has moved away from it.

Salon Magazine: Hamna Zubair: Jon Stewart Defends Duck Dynasty Star's Right to Free Speech

Source:The New Democrat

I’ve gone out of my way not to comment on the so-called Duck Dynasty controversy. From either the way so-called Progressives have responded to what Phil Robertson has said, or of course how the right-wing media has defended not only what Mr. Robertson has said, but his constitutional right to say what he believes and thinks. For one I do not watch the show and yes I’ve seen a few moments of it from time to time to time. Flipping around the tube when I’m up too late or turning on A&E when I’m waiting to see the A&E shows I’m actually interested in. Longmire, American Hoggers and now Rodeo Girls.

So I’m not a regular viewer of Duck Dynasty to so say the least. But also I’m not surprised by what Mr. Robertson said. I mean let’s be real about this show. It is in a part of the country where these views are fairly common. This is where the anti-sodomy laws are still in existence and where the same-sex-marriage bans come from. Not saying that everyone from the Bible Belt and rural America are bigots. Just a lot of ignorant people there to put more faith into their religious views, than education and America. But lets face it this is where these views tend to come from. But also so what if some asshole on a TV show doesn’t like homosexuals and sees homosexuality as a sin.

How is some ignorant redneck’s views on homosexuality news. And besides Phil Robertson has a constitutional right under the First Amendment to say these things and any ignorant garbage he wants to express. And of course A&E under that same constitutional amendment has the right to run their network under few exceptions the way they want to. But to kick off or suspend one of their cast members because he doesn’t like gays and made that public on one of their shows, looks like nothing more than political correctness leftist fascism politics run amuck.

And doing it to avoid being sued out of business by so-called Progressives activists who want to outlaw any type of hate speech that may happen to offend minorities they care about. Phil Robertson is basically only famous because he happened to say on a TV show something negative about gays. And of course the national media and so-called Progressive media going out-of-their way to keep the story alive to bring attention to hate speech in America. And perhaps promote one of their lost causes of outlawing hate speech in America. Which of course is protected by the first amendment whether it comes from the Right or Left. That the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time after time.

The New York Times: Thomas Edsall: 'Is The Safety Net Just Masking Tape?'

Source:New York Times- columnist Thomas Edsall.

Source:The New Democrat

"It’s easy for liberals to explain away setbacks to programs and policies that they favor — ranging from infrastructure investment to food stamps to increased education budgets — as the result of the intransigence of the Republican Party, with its die-hard commitment to slashing government spending on nearly every front. 

But that explanation is too facile.

A mix of economic, social and political forces have weakened the clout of those in the bottom half of the income distribution. The list of forces is long, but its signal features are the decline in manufacturing jobs, the strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations, the gutting of middle income employment and competitive pressures to limit wage growth.

How did the Democrats let these developments gain momentum? It depends on how you see the world. Some progressives argue that the Democratic Party stood by and let it happen passively; others suggest that key segments on the left simply sold out to #Wall_Street.

The same forces that have pushed the country to the right are attempting to define those on the bottom rungs – the infamous 47 percent — as mired in “dependency,” “an army of moochers and slackers.”

In the conservative worldview, social insurance programs undermine initiative and self-reliance and encourage those out of work or struggling to make ends meet to turn to the state for support.

In fact, structural economic obstacles to upward mobility for the bottom half are as important as personal behavioral decisions like dropping out of high school or not getting married when you have children. Such decisions often originate in or are reinforced by a lack of economic opportunity. Behavioral norms and structural economic issues are clearly intertwined, but in my view, structural issues have pride of place.

The economics of survival have forced millions of men, women and children to rely on “pity-charity liberal capitalism.” The state has become the resource of last resort consigning just the people progressives would like to turn into a powerful force for reform to a condition of subjugation — living out their lives on government subsidies like Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and now, Obamacare.

In many respects, the safety net has worked to hold society together, and it has the backing, explicit or implicit, of Democratic elites. This system also has the support of much of corporate America, especially of major low-wage employers like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. These companies are themselves subject to brutal market competition and use government programs that benefit their employees as a means of sustaining inadequate wages and fringe benefits.

The call of Konczal and his colleagues on the progressive left for an empowerment agenda — for structural economic reform — faces roadblocks far higher than many people realize. The loss of a political movement (economic liberalism) and its political vehicle (a stable progressive coalition) has put the left into a position of retreat, struggling to protect besieged programs that are designed explicitly for the poor and which therefore lack strong public backing.

The shift of the Democratic Party from economic to “#pity-charity” #liberalism has put the entire liberal project in danger. It has increased its vulnerability to conservative challenge and left it without a base of politically mobilized supporters. Progressives are now dependent on the fragile possibility that inequality and socioeconomic immobility will push the social order to the breaking point and force the political system to respond." 

From The New York Times 

"Author Charles Murray (American Enterprise Institute) and Larry Reed (Foundation for Economic Education) compare policies of the Roman welfare state to America's.  Liberty Pen" 

Source:Liberty Pen- economist Charles Murray.

From Liberty Pen 

First of all, just to correct the record on a couple things: America doesn't have a welfare state. We've never had a welfare state, as much as Socialists may hate that. 

A welfare state is a universal economic insurance system for anyone, regardless of income, can collect from it and then spend that money to subsidize their lives. We have a public social insurance system that's just for people who truly need it. Meaning they can't financially support themselves without some type of outside financial assistance, whether it's from government, private charity, friends or family, whoever might help them when they're living in hard times. 

And the 2nd correction which is just part of a pet peeve of mind, welfare statism is not liberal. Neither is social insurance or safety net. People who want a welfare state in America and who support it outside of America, the Bernie Sanders of the world and his supporters and ideological colleagues in Congress, are not Liberals. Believing that people are entitled to live off government (meaning the taxpayers) and shouldn't even be asked to go to school or get a job, is actually very illiberal. Socialists believe in government dependence, including unlimited government dependence, but no one else. 

A safety net, like with any car or any sports franchise, any local business, is only as good as you use it and make it. 

You let people stay on public assistance forever and even incentivize them too and punish them when they try to become independent, they'll be on public assistance their whole lives. 

But if you empower them to get a good education, help them get a starting job and eventually when they have the skills that they need, help them find a good job, if they still need your assistance, then the safety net can really good investment for taxpayers that everyone would benefit from. Because of all the new taxpayers, customers, and well-skilled workers that it could create, along with fewer people on public assistance and in poverty, which also benefits everybody.

Thom Hartmann: Follow The French On The Millionaire Tax

Source:PLYT-

Source:The New Democrat 

You want everyone paying their fair share of taxes at all economic levels. Which is one of the reasons why I’m in favor of what I call the Progressive Consumption Tax. Which would accomplish most of that especially by eliminating all the wasteful tax loopholes in the tax system, including corporate welfare. But you don’t want taxes so high on anyone that it discourages people to be productive and successful. And gets them asking the question, “why should I work hard and be productive when Uncle Sam takes most of the money that I make anyway?”We do not want taxes so high to that point which is what we saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s, with a recession, followed by weak economic and job growth. Similar to what we’ve grown through the last five years. And even though the Great Recession wasn’t a result of taxes being too high, taxes that are too high can play a role in creating recessions with people not having enough money to spend to create strong economic growth. And what we saw as a result in the mid 1960s was a Progressive Democratic president in Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress with Conservative Republican help, is cut taxes across the board for everyone. Which contributed to an economic boom of the mid and late 1960s.
Source:Thom Hartmann

NBC Sports: MLB 1979-All Star Game-National League @ American League: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

Playing an all-star baseball game at a football stadium. The Kingdome despite being fairly close to the action for baseball and a very loud stadium for both baseball and football, was basically a football stadium, because of its size, sixty-five thousand seats for football. And in the high fifty-thousands for baseball, but this was a great game. Where Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Dave Parker who was a five- tool player up until the mid 1980s, throws out a baserunner from the outfield wall unassisted. Perhaps the best defensive play in MLB All Star game history.

For all the talk about this game being a slugfest with the lineups that both teams had and the stadium they were playing at, this game could’ve been played at Shea Stadium in New York, or Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, Kaufmann Stadium in Kansas City. Because this was a pitchers duel with the Americans beating the Nationals 7-6. Which is a high score, but not that high compared with who was hitting for both teams and where they were playing. Goes to show you that great pitching, especially when that great pitching throws hard with control, will beat great hitting. Especially if those great hitters are expecting a big game because of the ballpark that they are playing at.

Thom Hartmann: We Are Subsidizing Low Wage Employers!

Source:The New Democrat. 

Here’s an idea. Instead of having taxpayers who mostly work in the middle class be forced to subsidize low-income workers for their food, housing and health care, instead penalize employers who pay their employees so low, that they need to collect public assistance from taxpayers in order to survive. Eat, housing, health care and so-forth, instead of subsidizing low-wages in this country. And tell employers the money we are now paying for Food Assistance, Public Housing and health insurance, they can get that back if they train their low-income workers so they can get a better job even in their company. Or somewhere else and not have to collect from public assistance at all.  

What taxpayers are doing now and again mostly in the middle class, is being forced to make up the difference in income that employers do not pay their low-income workforce. Because these low-income workers whether they work or at Wal-Mart, or for a fast food chain, do not make enough money to cover their housing, groceries and health insurance. They have to get that money from taxpayers instead of their employer so they have what they need to survive. Along with the corporate welfare and paying corporations to send their jobs oversees. When these employers have more than enough resources to pay their employees what they need for the basic necessities. Not so they are rich or even middle class, but so they can afford their rent, their groceries and their health insurance.

Thom Hartmann: 'It's Time to go 'Nuclear' on the Filibuster!'

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) Chairman of the Talk Your Head Off Until You Have To Go To The Bathroom Caucus. No, not really.

"Thom Hartmann says it's time for Senate Democrats to change the filibuster rule in order to approve President Obama's judicial nominees." 

From Thom Hartmann 

As a Liberal Democrat (meaning someone who believes in liberal democracy, not so much the Democratic Party) I'm a strong believer in checks and balances, protecting minority rights, etc. But not to the point that it basically puts the opposition party, at least in the Senate, where Republicans are both the opposition and minority party over there, basically in charge of everything. 

Under current rules, under Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans get to decide for themselves what gets debated, what comes up for a floor vote, what nominees get voted on, even though Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States last year, Senate Democrats picked up 2 seats and now have a bigger majority in the Senate, than they did last last year, in the last Congress. 

There even needs to be a check on minority rights, otherwise the opposition whether it's 45% of the vote, which is what Republicans have now in the Senate, or whatever the number would be in the future, will always be in charged, even though they lost and aren't supposed to be in charge under the U.S. Constitution, if American democracy means anything. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, need to end the filibuster on all executive nominations, as well as the motion to precede rule. And this is something that Mitch McConnell, or whoever the next Republican Senate Majority Leader is, could use to their advantage in future Congress's, when they have a Republican President and Senate, and even a Republican President and united Republican Congress (House and Senate) to their advantage) because American elections have to have consequences, if they're to mean anything.

The Globalist: Bill Hunphrey: ;The Problem With Billionaires'

Source:The New Democrat

This idea that what America needs to do is just tax the hell out of millionaires and billionaires and use that money to spend more on War on Poverty programs to help the poor, as if fifty-years later that has worked very well, because the ultra-right as Bill Humphrey likes to say, has so much money that they don’t know what to do with that money, but government can come in and spend that money better than the people, and if we just do that we can solve our economic problems, forgetting about the seventeen-trillion dollar national debt and six-hundred billion dollar budget deficit, simply doesn’t work.

But of course if you are a so-called Progressive of today, debt and deficits do not matter. But if that is the case, than why do we need to have such huge tax hikes to fix our economy. Why not just continue to borrow and spend to address our economic problems. I’ve already answered my own question, because debt and deficits do matter. Otherwise this proposal to raise taxes to pay for new government spending, because our beloved U.S. Government knows how to spend this money better than the people, I mean come on who are you trying to fool. Unless the real reason for this huge tax hike is because you just want government to have a lot more money to spend on behalf of the people.

I agree that if you include all the tax breaks, the wealthy in America are under taxed, especially compared with the middle class. But if that is the concern and not just raise new money for the government, you would be interested in tax reform that eliminates most of the tax breaks for the wealthy. And go to a Progressive Consumption Tax system or PCT Progressive Consumption Tax to replace the income tax. And everyone would be able to keep all the money they make except the money that they spend.

A PCT would benefit everyone including low-income people, because you could still keep the Earned Income Tax Credit and this system would be progressive. Lower taxes on basic necessities needed in life. Like food, health care, housing to use as examples. but higher taxes on luxury items. Luxury and sports cars, second homes, yachts, vacations to use as examples. We would tax people based on what they takeout of society including the wealthy. Instead of taxing people based on what they produce for society.

If the idea is to have a country with as many successful people as possible and with as few lets say low-income people as possible, knowing we’ll never have a country that is completely free of poverty, which is just an annoying fact, than you don’t tax people so high that is discourages them to be successful. And instead tax everyone based on what they take out of society. Especially the wealthy who spend a lot of money on things they do not need. And instead of just spending more money on social programs, design those programs so they empower people to be independent and live in freedom. So they do not need public assistance at all to pay their bills.

NBC Sports: MLB 1984-GOW-Detroit Tigers @ Chicago White Sox: Jack Morris No Hitter

Source:The New Democrat

Here’s one example of why Jack Morris should be in the MLB Hall of Fame. Because when he was on, he could be very dominant, because he threw hard and then throw in his devastating forkball and he could fool you. One of the last pitchers especially of his era that you wanted to fall behind, because of his forkball and he wouldn’t need to throw strikes to get you out. The 1984 Detroit Tigers are about as a complete and great baseball team that MLB has had. At least since 1969 when divisional play started. They were very good defensively, had a very good, deep and all around lineup offensively. And had very good pitching, both starting and in the bullpen. And Jack Morris was a big part of that and should get more credit for it.

Mike Koncsal: Given the Myth of Ownership, is the Idea of Redistribution Coherent? | Next New Deal

Source:The New Democrat

We need to get past the idea of whether or not wealth redistribution is a good or bad thing. And just define it instead and layout exactly what wealth redistribution is. Because if we do that, we’ll all know what it is and what it is for and realize that most of us as Americans are actually in favor of wealth redistribution at least in certain forms. And it would be an issue that could bring most of the country together and leave us with at least one issue. That we are united on and lessen some of the political division in the country.

Here’s an example where Progressive economist, professor and blogger Robert Reich and I actually agree on something. Wealth redistribution is anything that government does for the people through taxation. All the roads it pays for is wealth redistribution, the law enforcement it provides the national security it provides, the hospitals it builds, the social insurance programs, everything that it does to benefit the country as a whole is a form of redistribution of wealth.

And to give you an example, the Federal Government taxes Joe and Mary from Buffalo, New York, to build a road in Atlanta, Georgia that benefits Bob and Sally and others in the Atlanta area. Or taxes people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to expand, renovate and build a new military base in Dallas, Texas. That is wealth redistribution and of course Medicare and Social Security are wealth redistribution programs, because they tax today’s workers to benefit today’s retirees. And these are the two most popular things that government does that any politician risks their careers when they talk about changing those programs.

I just gave you the good versions of wealth redistribution that an overwhelming majority of the country supports. With only factions of the Tea Party movement and the Libertarian movement would oppose. And I’ll give you another popular form of wealth redistribution as well that gets to social insurance. You use taxpayer funds to not only help people in need get by in the short-term who for whatever reasons aren’t able to support and take care of themselves because they are out of work. Or lack the skills necessary to get a good job and you use those taxpayer funds to finance a real social insurance system that empowers people in need to get on their two feet. And be able to take care of themselves through education, job training, job experience and finally job placement into a good job. Sort of like property insurance when your home is hit with a disaster and you need money to repair the home. Or buy a new home and you collect from the insurance in order to do that.

Redistribution is sort of an unpopular term in America because thanks to the right-wing and Social Democrats on the Left-Wing, it tends to be viewed in socialistic terms. “You take money from the successful to give to government to take care of the economically unsuccessful. People in America who aren’t for whatever reasons able to take care of themselves. Encouraging people to be dependent on government, while discouraging people to be successful”. That is how right-wingers have successfully stereotyped wealth redistribution in America. And Social Democrats on the Left who actually believe in this form of wealth redistribution have helped the Right out on this by actually being in favor of this.

NBC Sports: MLB 1979- ALCS Game 3- Baltimore Orioles @ Anaheim Angels: Full Game

Source:MLB Home Video- former Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego 1B Steve Garvey.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Steve Garvey is the host of Baseball's Greatest Games, a weekly cable TV show from the early 90's.  Some innings were edited out to make time for a 2-hour broadcast.  

To order other classic games like this one on DVD, contact Joe at:AA Classic Sports." 

From Joey D B Ball 

Game 3 of the 1979 ALCS being played at Anaheim Stadium. And if you guessed Anaheim Stadium is located in Anaheim, California, you have a solid grasp of the obvious. 

It's ironic that 1979 would be the season that the Anaheim Angels would finally make to postseason play, since this was the last season before the converted what was a beautiful baseball park, to what would become another artificial, multipurpose stadium, with the Los Angeles Rams moving to Anaheim in 1980 and becoming the Anaheim Rams. But pre-football, Anaheim was similar to Royals Stadium in Kansas City, except Anaheim has always had grass. It was a beautiful ballpark.

Brave New Foundation: Beyond Bars

Source:Brave New Films- a man being interviewed for this documentary.

"Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the country's biggest for-profit prison company and calls human beings in lock-up a "revenue stream." Don't let them profit off imprisoning even more. ACLU  

This video is part of the Prison Profiteers series produced by Brave New Foundation's Beyond Bars campaign in partnership with the ACLU and The Nation. Narration by Henry Rollins. Research help provided by Prison Legal News." 

From Brave New Films

I like this approach because rehabilitation is sort of like learning a different language. The earlier in life you do that, the easier it will be and once someone is already part of the criminal justice system, it's hard to get them out and prevent them from going back in. 

But if you can prevent so called risk at youth from going into the criminal justice system, through what's called crime prevention which targets risk at youth, making sure they are getting the education that they need, with things like extra tutoring that they may need or after school programs, again so, they can get extra help, supporting their parents so they can do the best job possible in raising their own kids, helping them get a job or a better job through job training, so they don't have to live in high crime neighborhoods with high poverty, we can prevent risk at youth from having to go into the criminal justice system in the first place.

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart- 'Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech'

Source:The Daily Beast- "They may think shutting down NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly's speech was standing up for their principles, but protecting respectful dialogue is as important as ever." From The Daily Beast.

Source:FreeState MD

"Tell that to Ray Kelly. Yesterday the New York City police chief was prevented from speaking on Paxson’s campus by students angered by the NYPD’s racial profiling. Those students have good reason to be angry. Unfortunately, they’re the latest in a long line of campus activists who believe their anger trumps other people’s free speech. 

Netanyahu from speaking at Montreal’s Concordia University. In 2009, activists at the University of North Carolina shut down a planned speech by anti-immigration congressman Tom Tancredo.

There’s something deeper going on here. On the surface, campuses like Brown’s seem hegemonically liberal. But in my experience, that apparent consensus conceals a crucial gulf between students and faculty who hold left of center opinions but accept basic norms of fair play and students who consider freedom of speech a scam employed by the powers that be to perpetuate their racism/sexism/classism/imperialism/homophobia. Convinced that freedom of speech is an illusion denied them outside the university gates, they take revenge in the one arena where the balance of forces tilt their way. And they thus inject into their own campuses the totalitarian spirit they believe characterizes society at large. It’s no surprise that such activists targeted Ray Kelly, and that for years they tried to bar military recruiters. What better way to deny your government’s basic legitimacy than to turn the people it deputizes to protect you into pariahs." 

From The Daily Beast 

"A Disgraceful Decision by NPR" O'Reilly

Fired National Public Radio analyst breaks down events following Muslim comments on 'The O'Reilly Factor'" 

Source:The State of The Union- Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor in 2010, talking about being fired by taxpayer funded National Public Radio.

From The State of The Union 

I hate the term "campus liberals" to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, than they do Liberals. I’ll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy, because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn’t have any opposition. 

So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.  

My main response to Peter Beinart is that people who oppose right-wingers that they dislike right to free speech in America, aren't Liberals because free speech is as liberal a value that exists anywhere in the world. But instead these young folks for the most part are left-wing fascists, or acting left-wing fascists. It's Communists or Neo-Communists who are on the Far-Left perhaps everywhere in the world outside of Cuba and North Korea, who oppose free speech. Not Liberals because Liberals believe in liberal democracy. And free speech is as liberal as any value that you have in a liberal democracy. 

NBC Sports: MLB 1986-5-03-GOW-Anaheim Angels @ Milwaukee Brewers: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports- MLB Game of The Week.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"1986 05 03 NBC GOW California Angels At Milwaukee Brewers" 

From NBC Sports

Source:NBC Sports- the Angels and Brewers from 1986.

The 1986 Angels were a very good, if not great all around team: hitting, pitching, and defense that should’ve at least gotten to the World Series. But of course lost three straight games in the ALCS after having a 3-1 lead in that series.

The Angels, who contended both in 84 and 85 in the AL West, which was back before the wildcard came into both leagues, looked like the team to beat in the AL West both seasons. 1986, they weren’t expected to win the AL West, especially the way that they did by being in first place most of the season. But in 86, they put it together for the whole season, both with their offense and pitching. And managed to avoid fading in August and September like they did in 84 and 85. 

The 1986 Brewers, were somewhat in transition. Especially with their pitching and weren’t contenders at all and about a 500 ball club.

The North Star: Dario Cancovic: Capitalist Oligarchy & Socialist Democracy

Source: Portside.Org- Marxists?

Source:FreeState MD

If you want to know what Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists should be about at least in America, look no further than Senator Bernie Sanders. The only self-described Democratic Socialist in the United States Congress. But you could also look at former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich who was essentially redistricted out of office, or look at Ralph Nader. And why do I say this, because these men aren’t great fans of capitalism, or private business and certainly not corporations. But understand economics well enough that you must have a certain level of private enterprise, to have a strong functioning economy.

Democratic Socialists in America understand economics well enough to know to have a functioning economy you must have at least a certain level of private enterprise. That there is indeed a limit to what government, even a Federal government can do for their people. Who need the freedom to succeed and be able to make a living for themselves and run business’s and so-fouth. Central-planning, when it comes to economics, tends not to work. And you need at least a certain level of competition to have the strongest economy possible. Where as many people as possible can succeed in it.

Now where democratic socialism comes in, is to make sure that the private sector is regulated by the public sector, is taxed by the public sector to fund all sorts of things that Socialists believe that government should be doing for the people. But also so you have a strong enough economy to fund the centralized superstate that Socialists, tend to be in favor of to provide the human services that people have to have in order to live well anywhere. Like healthcare, health insurance, education, public transportation, childcare and the regulators that the central state in the social democracy needs to make sure that private business are behaving and not abusing their workers and their consumers.

Europe, is full of social democracies like this. Especially in Scandinavia, but Britain is another good example. And these countries are functioning developed countries. But a big reason for that is because of their economies all have capitalist economic systems with strong private sectors to provide the central state with the revenue it needs to do the things for the people that Socialists want done.This is what democratic socialism is about in Europe and what it should be about in America. Which is a socialist form of capitalism. Which I know sounds strange, but it is true.

Because socialism, is a broader political philosophy, not just an economic system. But once you go past this and say capitalism is too risky and too many people get hurt while a few do very well and start talking about nationalizing industries if not all industries and having state take over the economic system, you don’t produce a socialist utopia. But you get an inefficient North Korea, or China from the 1970s. Or the old Soviet Union. A failed gigantic superstate trying to do too much for it's people.
Source:The School of Life

NBC Sports: MLB 1985-GOW-6/22-New York Yankees @ Detroit Tigers: Full Game

Source:The Daily Journal

1985 is the perfect example of why MLB should’ve went to the three division format in both the American and National League with the playoff wildcards well before 1994. Because you had four ninety win teams in 1985 and each division champion would’ve had at least ninety wins. The Toronto Blue Jays in the AL East, Kansas City Royals in the AL Central, and the Anaheim Angels in the AL West. The New York Yankees as a wildcard team in 85 would’ve have more wins than every division winner except for the Blue Jays. If you go with two wild cards in each league, the Detroit Tigers would’ve just barely misses the AL Playoffs in 85 with 84 wins, a game behind the Chicago White Sox. 1985 was a great year for MLB and the Yankees and Tigers were both in the playoff race that year. And played each other on NBC which is this game.

The Globalist: Uwe Bott- 'The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform'

Source:The Globalist- our Founding Liberals. Sorry, Socialists, live with it.

Source:FreeState MD 

"If anything, the chronic re-occurrence of the U.S. government’s failure to approve a budget as well as the repetitive quarrel over raising the country’s debt ceiling demonstrate one thing clearly: Constitutional reform is the priority in the United States. Without it, the U.S. will indeed become a failed state.

Such reform should not be difficult. At the U.S. state level there have been 230 constitutional conventions since the founding of the country, according to Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas and author of Our Undemocratic Constitution. The State of New York is currently on its fifth constitution. If the 50 states can do it, why not the nation as a whole?

Other countries, too, have a record of frequently changing or adopting new versions of their constitutions. In contrast, the constitution of the United States of 1787 seems to enjoy a sacredness only matched by some religious books.

The last change to the U.S. Constitution, the 27th Amendment, was approved in 1992. Hard though it may be to believe, it dealt with the oh-so critical issue of increases in salary for members of the U.S. Congress not taking effect until the term following the increase.

How much more myopic can one get? Maybe the country should have saved its action-oriented powder for something more earthshaking." 

From The Globalist

I’ve blogged about this before, but the problems with America do not have to do with the United States Constitution. But the some of our so-called leaders and public officials who in some cases represent a hard fringe on the Far-Right, or Far-Left. Some represent the people who send them to Washington. And some actually represent their constituents pretty well. And deserve to be reelected over and over. And to say that we should change our Constitution just because there is precedent to do so, is not a reason.

It is like saying: “I had steak for dinner last night so I might as well have it again tonight.” Without looking at what else is available to eat that night and what would be the best thing to eat that night. And if you are going to do something drastic like changing the U.S. Constitution, the document that fathered liberal democracy in the world and what a lot of other democracies are built around with all the rights and freedom and what comes from that, as well as the checks and balances and separations of powers, you gotta have a hell of a reason to change such a great document. That has only been changed I believe twenty-seven times in two-hundred and thirty-seven years.

To say we must change the U.S. Constitution because we have a faction in one party in one chamber of one branch of government, essentially holding the rest of the government and I don’t like using this word unless I’m actually talking about real hostages, but holding the rest of the government back, is crazy. The answer is to vote out people who aren’t governing responsibly.

All of these Congressional Democrats who supported the Affordable Care Act, voted for it and even wrote parts of it. To change a Constitution, just because House Republicans don’t like one law, is not a good reason. What you do in that situation is what Democrats are doing now and hold them accountable: “These are the people who are preventing the Federal Government from reopening, because they’ve failed over and over to get a law killed that they hate.” And you keep pointing them out in public until their leadership gets the message. And says: “Enough is enough. We aren’t going to let this fringe ruin us in the next election.” And you hold them accountable again at the ballot box in 2014 and get them replaced by responsible adults.

If you love social democracy so much, how about living in one for a while. And see if you like that more than America. And live somewhere where elections do not have consequences. And votes in a way do not matter. Because if a majority of people and that majority just might be one and they decide that current government in power is not popular, new elections can be called right away even if there is already a new government.

America, is a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal Democracy. And we are different and we have basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us. Like being abused my a majority and we have minority rights in this country. And just because 50.1% of the country thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to do something, doesn’t necessarily mean they get to rule over the 49.9% of the country that says: “How we live our own lives, is none of your damn business. So why don’t you butt the hell out.” As we are seeing with the gay rights cases that going through the court system including gay marriage. Where gay marriage bans are getting thrown out. Even gay marriage bans that were popular and voted for by the will of the people, so to speak.

Social democracy, is essentially rule by majority including the majority being able to rule over the minority. And being able to tell them how they can live their own lives. And that is just not how liberal democratic America rolls. (So to speak) We say power to the individual and let them govern themselves as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. And we have constitutional rights that can’t be taken away from us that protect our privacy. And our ability to live our own lives that can’t be taken away from us by a popular vote. 

And as I said before the problem with America, is not our Constitution. But some of our public officials who do not understand it who need to be kicked out of office.

Russia Today: Anissa Noauai Interviewing Noam Chomsky- ‘Democrats are Really Moderate Republicans’

Source:Russia Today- Professor Noam Chomsky being interviewed by President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

Source:FreeState MD

“Noam Chomsky, the famous political commentator and MIT professor emeritus, has long said, “There used to be a kind of a quip that the United States was a one-party state, with a Business Party that had two factions: the Democrats and the Republicans.” But now, he says, there is still one party, but with only one faction. “It’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans,” he said. “Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right.” Find out what else Chomsky had to say about the state of American politics and the current government shutdown in his sit-down interview with RT’s Anissa Naouai.”

From Russia Today 

"Noam Chomsky: Democrats are really moderate Republicans

This channel provides bite-sized (mostly) speech or interviews of Slavoj Žižek and Noam Chomsky - the two philosophers with different views on a lot of issues. We hope this process helps to digest their opinion or views on specific issues." 

Source:Russia Today- talking about MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

From The Žižek/Chomsky Times 

RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or 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.[64] 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.[71]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[72] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][73] 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.[74]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[75] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[76][77] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[78] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[79][80] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[81][82] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[83][84] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

This is an area where I would disagree with Noam Chomsky and no this is not the only area. But if this were the case that "Democrats are really Moderate Republicans" as Professor Noam Chomsky said, we wouldn’t have a government shutdown right now. Because suggesting the Democrats are really Moderate Republicans, is saying that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the same thing. Same party which is clearly not the case and Professor Chomsky essentially represents the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, even though I do not believe he’s officially a Democrat.

But Noam Chomsky comes from the Far-Left in the American political spectrum that includes Democrats like former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich and some other members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. And when you are that far to the Left, anyone not as far to the Left of you looks moderate or, conservative. The Far-Left in America represents maybe 10-15 percent of the country and simply not large enough to govern a major political party. Especially the largest political party in America the Democratic Party.

I’ve blogged about this before, but the Democratic Party is made up of essentially four factions:The JFK Liberal (Center-Right faction) that I come from, the FDR/Truman/LBJ Progressive, (Center-Left faction)  and the social democratic/democratic socialist, (FarLeft faction) Eugene Debbs/Henry Wallace/George McGovern and today Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. And the centrist wing the Blue Dogs in Congress who could be mainstream Republicans as well. Who tend to represent right-wing areas in the South. 

The Democratic Party isn't  a moderate party, but a politically diverse party that tends to be led by Center-Right Liberals and Center-LeftProgressives, at least when we win. The modern Democratic Party is not that different from the Republican Party pre-1990 or so, that had a Center-Right and Center-Left in it, of Conservative and Progressive Republicans.

Inky: Citroen DS OldTimer in Berlin

Source: Inky- Citroen D-Model 

Source: FRS Daily Journal Plus

This car right here, this beautiful 1971 D-Model Citroen, brings back great memories for me. My father at one point owned three of them. Grew up with all three of them and when he worked for the U.S. Public Health Service, he drove one of them to work everyday, after he gave up his Subaru that rusted out. The Subaru, was a pretty good car too. But comparing a Subaru of any model, with a Citroen D-Model, is like comparing a Ford Escort with a Lincoln Continental. There really isn’t any comparison.

The Subaru wagon that Dad had, was like sporty economy car, with a bit of a hard ride. The D-Model and all of three of them that we had, were luxury cars. Big luxury cars, the size of a Jaguar, but not as heavy, with a lot more leg room in the rear, that handled like a sports car. With its four-wheel hydraulic suspension, gave you the feeling that you were riding first class in a chartered airplane. Except without the noise and perhaps with even more leg room and no bumps.

True, no gorgeous sexy stewardess comes with a Citroen DS ride. But that’s a small sacrifice from everything else that comes with either riding in, or driving a Citroen DS. We’re talking about a luxury car, that is similar to a Rolls Royce as far as comfort. But a third of the price and not has heavy or as big. And I just wish that Citroen still made the DS and that they sold their cars in America. And perhaps one day the French will decide that America is the market they need to be in, for them to sell as many cars as they can.
Inky: Citroen DS Oldtimer in Berlin

Retro Jeans Network: Video: 1980s Jordache Denim Jeans For Women Commercial

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The music might sound corny thirty-years later, but those Jordache denims on that women certainly do not look corny. If anything those designer jeans and that type of designer denim is even bigger today. I’ll never understand why women’s denim jeans went from dark wash designer denims from the late 1970s all the way to 1985 or so, to acid wash denims from the late 1980s and even into the early 1990s. And then back to the designer denims of the late 1990s that we are still going through today with the jeans in boots look coming back into style ten-years ago, that is still with us especially in cold weather. The designer denims of this era and now with the low-rise skinny denim look are perfect for sexy women. Especially the dark wash jeans, because of how they highlight women’s legs and butts. Without the women having to show skin when she sits down or stands up.

The Daily Show: Video: U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Filibuster: Ted Cruz Cruising to be King of Hot Air

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Senator Ted Cruz is one of the biggest sore losers in Congress both physically and personally. Not to know that he doesn’t have the votes to get what he wants that he’ll be forced to give up the floor on Wednesday when the Senate officially comes back into session if he doesn’t do that before. Because there are probably 10-15 Senate Republicans along with all fifty-four soon to be fifty-five Senate Democrats, who’ll vote to move forward on the vote to kill the House passed government spending bill that defunds the Affordable Care Act.

Apparently Senator Cruz is either delusional, so high on pot you would need the Star Trek Enterprise to bring him back to Earth, a lonely bachelor with nothing to do, but to stay up late not watching home shopping channels, but standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate past midnight talking to one person, the presiding officer who is snoring in the chair, or is just a cruel person who enjoys wasting people’s time including his own. There’s nothing for him to gain here, other than making it on late-night TV as a national joke.

Marie Marr: Video: MSNBC's Up With Steve Kornacki: An Opening For Elizabeth Warren in 2016?

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

I buy that there is anger I guess or this feeling that we need something different on the lets call it the Far-Left in the Democratic Party or at least with the further Left Progressive-Democrats (to be nice) like Senator Elisabeth Warren whose not a Far-Leftist as much as her followers may want her to be. Senator Warren is a mainstream Progressive Democrat similar to Ted Kennedy or Sherrod Brown or Tom Harkin. She’s from the FDR/LBJ wing of the Democratic Party. Not the Michael Moore or MSNBC wing, which is very different.

Elizabeth Warren is not a McGovernite government needs to be big enough to manage people’s lives for them, because people are too stupid to that for themselves. She’s not Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader but a center-left Progressive to the Left of me and I’m a Liberal, who want government to do basic things. Like regulating big business especially Wall Street, but not ending business and turning them into government agencies. And when Occupy Wall Street and others on the Far-Left figure this out, by sobering up, she’ll get less of their support.

Senator Warren is not an extremist and if that is what Social Democrats in the Democratic Party want a FDR or Ted Kennedy Progressive, someone whose also pretty mainstream, than great someone like an Elisabeth Warren would go far. And give someone like a Hillary Clinton who at best is a Moderate Liberal and that may only be when she feel she needs to be. Hillary is like a political calculator. She calculates where she believes she needs to be at the time to be politically successful. Which is her main weakness and I believe something she’s going to have to get past, if she really wants to be President of the Untied States.

If Elizabeth Warren were to run as that Progressive that I’m talking about and Hillary runs as the human political calculator, my support would go to the current Senator. Because at least I would know where she is on the issues and be with her on enough things to say voting for her was a good thing. But if she were to run as a McGovernite “big central government always knows best for the people. And people are too stupid to manage their own affairs”, she’ll make Dennis Kucinich look like Ronald Reagan when it comes to presidential politics as far as political support. And bomb as badly as Rihanna at a Southern Baptist Convention.