Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The Atlantic: James Kwak: "Washington's Backward Retirement Policy": How to Increase Retirement Security Through Individual Freedom and Responsibility

Washington's Backward Retirement Policy: So Wrong, and Yet So Easy to Fix - James Kwak - The Atlantic

The best way to have more retirement-security is through better economic and job-growth with more Americans working. Falling unemployment and rising wages more Americans have the resources to save what they need to plan their own retirements. Rather then government or their employer trying to do that for them which is really what individual-freedom and responsibility is about. Eliminate the middleman or middle women put the power and responsibility with the individual. If we accomplished this what would happen. More people working, more people making money instead of collecting money. More people making more money, more people with the resources to plan their own retirements,  less people in need of. Social Security once they are eligible for it just to pay their bills in their retirement years. More people using their Social Security income like a senior citizen uses their income from a part time job that they have to. Keep themselves busy but actually not needing that job to pay their bills.

As far as pensions are concern I've already blogged this before but I'm for a version of what's called Social Security Plus. The base of Social Security staying in place and not privatized but where workers would have the option to create a new personal retirement account for themselves. That they would be able to put money into separate from their base payroll tax that would be matched by their employer and. Would be tax free in both cases that they would have the option to invest their PRA funds on their own. Like in stocks or in a business and be able to keep whatever they make from those investments but also. Be personally liable for whatever losses they may have as well. But since they now have the funds to make these investments, they should have the knowledge to know what are good investments and what. Are not and be able to make these decisions for themselves rather then their employer or government doing that for them.

We do not need less freedom for the people and more power for the government for our own good. To save Social Security or have a better retirement-system in America but we need more people working. And more people making more money and the ability to make these decisions for themselves.

NBC Sports: Video: NFL 1980-AFC Final-Oakland Raiders @ San Diego Chargers: Dick Engberg Intro

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

Dick Engberg with a real good intro here. Not his best, but I believe he was one of the better announcers at the intro. Because of his voice, his passion for sports, perhaps especially football and he knew what he was talking about as well. So he brought a realness to his work. As far as this game, I wish I could’ve found something more than just this intro, but this was all that was available at this time. But the Raiders-Chargers AFC Final was a classic matchup of a very good and talented, well-coached intelligent team in the Raiders. Against a very explosive offense especially in their passing game in the Chargers. Who also had a good running game, but never played enough defense to get actually get to a Super Bowl. And still have only been to one Super Bowl in their entire history.

National Review: MSNBC's The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell- Margaret Thatcher Was a Good Socialist

Source: National Review: MSNBC's The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell- Margaret Thatcher Was a Good Socialist

I’m glad to see MSNBC produce an editorial in favor of socialism, because it goes to my overall argument of how far to the left of American liberalism that they tend to be and represent more of the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. Or the Democratic Socialist Party or Green Party, than they do Liberal Democrats. But having said that I’ll give credit where credit is due. And give Larry O’Donnell (as I call him) credit for when he says that Margaret Thatcher didn’t eliminate British socialism as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom.

But what Prime Minister Thatcher did was simply reformed socialism by getting rid of the sad socialism in the British economy and government. By privatizing industries and requiring people who can work and take care of themselves, to actually do that for themselves and nat be able to collect public assistance indefinitely. But left the Socialism that works in Britain as it has to do with their welfare state like their National Health Service. But things like government spending went up when she was Prime Minister and never had to deal with an opposition controlled Parliament, which is what American president’s have to deal with on a regular basis.

Even though the United Kingdom has a Conservative Party and a Labour Party, they are basically divided between two Socialist parties ideologically. At least how they would look in the United States. With the Conservative Party looking like FDR New Deal Progressive Democrats. Big believers in central government and the welfare state to take care of people. But also big believers in a strong national defense, a robust internationalist foreign-policy, strong law enforcement, rule of law, tough on terrorism and so-forth.

Things that McGovern Progressive Democrats in America today who are different from the FDR Democrats, tend not to be in favor of. Except as it has to do with the welfare state and the big central government. So Maggie Thatcher looks pretty conservative by British standards, but Britain is essentially a Socialist state whether the Conservatives or Labour’s are in power and they do not look very conservative in America.

As Larry O’Donnell said, Prime Minster Thatcher as much as she went off against socialism, she was really going after the bad socialism in Britain. But had strong socialist views herself and wanted to keep the socialism in Britain that works as it get’s to their welfare state. But eliminate the bad socialism in the country. Like the state-owned industries and indefinite public assistance for people who are able to take care of themselves.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

BBC: Brian Magee Interviews Noam Chomsky- 'The Ideas of Noam Chomsky'

Source:BBC News- Professor Noam Chomsky, being interviewed by BBC News, in 1977.
Source:The FreeState MD

"An old interview mostly on Chomsky's linguistics work, philosophy, and some remarks on political views near the end.

Note: the video is taken from Youtube, where it was broken into five segments, when I re-merged the segments the audio got a little strange, so that before the next segment's audio starts the audio from the last segment jumps in for a fraction of a second. Its tolerable though."

From  Supremo Ichigo

I was in a debate about a year ago with someone who self-describes their politics as libertarian. And we were talking about Professor Noam Chomsky and this person was describing Noam Chomsky’s politics as socialist. And I told this person that Professor Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist. Which might sound like an oxymoron, because how can someone be both a Libertarian and a Socialist. Libertarians are always looking to shrink the size of government and Socialists are always looking to grow the size of government.
Source:BBC- interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky

Libertarians tend to think that government is way too big and Socialists especially in America tend to think that government is way too small. This person said that: “you can’t be both, it’s sort of one or the other”. And what I trying to get across to them and not believing I was successful, is that you can be both as long as you aren’t socialist or libertarian on both economic and social issues. That you have to believe in a high deal of individual freedom at least as it relates to personal or economic freedom.

So what is a Libertarian Socialist: It’s someone whose liberal libertarian on social-issues. Meaning they do not want government interfering with our personal lives including as it relates to prohibition. And in America are even in favor of gun rights, against the War on Drugs, censorship even as it relates to hate speech. Doesn’t really sound like someone who would be a Progressive today, but what they do have in common with Socialists  (again, Libertarian Socialists ) is they both have a big role for government in the economy.

People who are liberal-libertarian on social-issues, but socialist on economic policy. And believe in things like the welfare state, high taxes for social spending and so-forth. Big regulations on private enterprise, big believers in the right to organize and so-forth. Libertarian socialism is a form of socialism at least in its liberal not paternalistic form. That government shouldn’t try to run our lives, but be there to provide us the services that can’t be trusted to the private sector.

Libertarian socialism is the only form of socialism or that I respect as a Liberal. Because even though they believe in a big state as it relates to the economy, they do not believe that government should be trying to run our lives for us and are not pure statists at least. And even believe in a high deal of economic freedom as long as it’s highly taxed and regulated. So no one get’s left behind in society. This is not my philosophy, but it’s a lot better from what we are hearing from so-called Progressives today who seem to be believe in a big role for government in the economy, but also in our personal lives. As far as what personal choices we are allowed to make.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Joey Teefizz: Video: MISL 1982-Baltimore Blast @ New York Arrows: First Half

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The New York Arrows were around in the early days of the MISL. Late 1970s to mid 1980s or so. Pro indoor soccer has never caught on in New York. Which is a shame, because New York is a great sports market. A great pro soccer market and the biggest sports market in America. And indoor soccer is a great sport when played well and is a very exciting fast-paced game. But only the New York Red Bulls of the MLS an outdoor soccer league has ever caught on and done well in the New York/North Jersey area. Unlike the Baltimore Blast, that have been around since I believe day one in the MISL, which was 1979 and are still in business today. And like the San Diego Sockers are the class of American indoor soccer. As far as the type of fan support that they’ve had and all the championships that they’ve won.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Joey Teefizz: Video: SportsChannel: MISL 1985-12/22/84-New Jersey Cosmos @ Los Angeles Lazers: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

Two of the better clubs and better markets in the MISL. If soccer can’t succeed in Los Angeles and the New York/New Jersey area, it won’t make it in America, period. Because those markets are so big and they are very good soccer markets anyway for both soccer and arena soccer. I think the MISL knew this even back then, but for whatever reasons were never able to market their clubs very well. Similar to what the NHL went through up until the 1980s or so and a big reason why it took them forever to expand and become a big league. Which they didn’t do until the early 1970s. But the NHL figured it out and almost forty-years later the MISL is still struggling just to survive. But having successful clubs in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, to go along with their traditionally strong markets would help a lot with that.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Center for American Progress: David Madland & Kira Walter- Top 6 Policies To Help The Middle Class That Won't Cost Taxpayers a Penny

Source: CAP- U.S. President Barack Obama- 
Source: Center For American Progress: David Madland & Kira Walter- Top 6 Policies to Help the Middle Class that Won’t Cost Taxpayers a Penny

Instead of taking the approach of how can we empower government to take care of everybody or take care of the people who are currently struggling and create all sorts of new government social programs, I'm going to take the approach to quote Jerry Maguire, how can I meaning government in this case help you. And I would add to that what government do to empower the millions of Americans who need it help themselves. And have the same freedom both economic and personal that the rest of the country has.

And it gets to things like infrastructure investment rebuilding this country,

Universal lifelong education and job training so all Americans always have the ability to improve themselves.

Tax reform so we have more companies investing more money in America, especially American companies. And we tax people based on what they take out of society not what they contribute to society.

And a national energy policy that finally moves this country towards energy independence by utilizing our vast menu of natural resources.

So if you are looking for the Next New Deal, keep looking I'm sure you'll find it.

If I were to write an Economic Bill of Rights for the United States and I may do that for this blog in the future, it would be about education and the right to organize for all workers, but that all workers would also have the right to not join a union and operate as a free agent. And not subjected to union dues, but just wouldn't get the benefits that come with being in a union as well.

The education part is also key that all Americans would have the right to a lifelong education no matter the income level or their parents. Always having the ability to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held accountable for what they do with those opportunities for good and bad and in between. So what government would be telling the people that they everyone in America whois physically and mentally able would have the ability to be successful in life. No longer stuck in poverty because they come from and live in rural or innercity America.

What government will also do is subsidize people's success and for any American who is working would always make more than Americans who are unemployed.

And universal access to education and job training would especially be available. For people who are not working, but need to be, too young or without the resources to retire.

We have an economic system like this and real tax-reform that taxes everybody by what they takeout of society, instead of what they contribute to society and we would have a true liberal democracy. I know Social Democrats and right-wingers hate that term, but get use to it. Where all Americans would have access to both economic and personal freedom.
See Progress: Van Jones- The Green Collar Economy

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Merv Griffin Show: Video: U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy Interview: Civil Unrest, Vietnam War, in 1967

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

Bobby Kennedy who wasn’t a Baby Boomer, more of a depression baby, doing a good job speaking for the Baby Boom generation. Not the whole generation, but certainly the New Left that came of age in the 1960s and early 1970s. Whose parents were from the Silent Generation and World War II, who saw America except for the Counter-Culture Movement as just fine the way it was and were happy with the status quo. Because that is what they grew up with and all they knew. Now seeing their kids as people who came of age during the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. And seeing all sorts of poverty in America and thinking they could get involved in these things and change America for the good. Who saw the status quo in American life as not worth conserving. And wanted to create a new America for themselves.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

NBA-TV: Video: NBA 1971-NBA Finals- Milwaukee Bucks vs. Baltimore Bullets: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The Bullets never seemed to be able to get into sync either offensively or defensively against the Bucks in the whole 71 NBA Finals. The Bullets were either getting stopped and turning the ball over, or giving up big buckets to the Bucks. The Bucks big three especially of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson and Bob Dandridge. And the only question about the Bucks would be, who was a bigger part of the big three. Kareem or Oscar, because you could make a good case they are the two best players who’ve ever played. As well as the best center and point guard of all-time.

The Bullets were really on defense all four games of this series. Because the Bucks were doing what they wanted to do really the whole time. They knew who get to the ball to and when on offense and who to stop on defense. Let Oscar run the show and hit Kareem deep in the post, where the Bullets had no one who could handle him. And when the Bullets spend too much attention either trying to defend Kareem or Oscar, because there wasn’t really much they could do against, the opened up things for Dandridge.

Toledo Blade: President FDR Fireside Chat- 2nd Bill of Rights From 1/11/1944

Source: Toledo Blade-
Source: Toledo Blade: President FDR Fireside Chat- 2nd Bill of Rights

I'm been wanting to write a blog for a while now on what is the progressive idea of freedom. Because their hero or the Ronald Reagan of the American progressive movement spoked about freedom and the need for it a lot and so did Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and even Teddy Roosevelt where a lot of the progressive policies were inspired. Henry Wallace who ran for President fror the Progressive Party back in 1948 would be another example of that. I mean I don't think you can credibly call yourself a Progressive and not believe in individual freedom at least to a certain point.

Because a lot of what progressivism is about is about progress. So if you believe government should be taking away a lot of our current freedom if not most of it, you are no longer a Progressive, but just a pure Statist. That government has to have most if not all of the power for the good of society. Its just that the progressive notion of freedom is a lot less individualistic than Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals, thats all. And puts more faith in the state to serve the people well.

So what is the so-called modern progressive notion of freedom at least coming from a non-Progressive or someone who doesn't fit the popular definition of Progressive. In its most limited form it would be the freedom to not have to take responsibility for one's own well-being.

Education of your children, health care, health insurance, pension, childcare, unemployment ,would be generous if you need it. And you wouldn't even be expected to go back to work. Health care and health insurance would never be denied to you no matter what, it would never be free but it would always be there for you. You would always have a job no matter what because you would be entitled to one as well well as entitled to make a good living. So perhaps unemployment insurance would go away. Even if you do not bring any marketable skills to the table and whatever you make from your job, if its not enough. Government would give you the rest from tax payers to cover your bills. This probably all sounds like Fantasy Land to non-Progressives and what a Socialist Utopia would look like.

What I'm talking about her is no longer progressivism but a democratic form of socialism. Where there would be a generous welfare state to provide the people with the services that we all need, but run by government. Because Socialists do not trust the private sector to handle these things.

Like health care, health insurance and education, a safety net for people who fall through the cracks of the capitalist system. Thats financed through high taxes, which is where Socialists  need to get back to instead of talking about all of the new government services to replace services from the private sector. Pensions being the latest one if Socialists were to  ever have real power in America.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Wilt Chamberlain Archive-ABC Sports: NBA 1971-NBA Finals-Game 4-Milwaukee Bucks @ Baltimore Bullets: 2nd-Half

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

With both Kareem and Oscar on the Bucks team, the greatest center of all-time and arguably the greatest player and all around point guard of all-time in Oscar Robertson, that was too much to deal with for even a very good Bullets team. Especially with injuries that they were dealing with, like with key forward Gus Johnson. The Bullets lost to a team that was better than them in the 1971 NBA Finals. The only time they made it to the NBA Finals in Baltimore. The Bucks weren’t a deeply talented team with a tone of great players in 71. But they had Kareem and Oscar and a very good supporting cast around them.

If anything the Bullets perhaps peaked too soon in 71. With the New York Knicks failing to get back to the Finals after winning the NBA Finals in 1970. The Boston Celtics were in somewhat of a transition in the early 1970s, transitioning from the Red Auerbach/Bill Russell era of the 1960s and transition back to being an NBA Finals contender in the mid-1970s, where they won the Finals in 1974 and 76. The Philadelphia 76ers were awful in the early 1970s. So that opened up the door for the Bullets in the Eastern Conference in 1971.

Wilt Chamberlain Archive: Video: MSG: NBA 1973-ECSF-Game 1-Baltimore Bullets @ New York Knicks: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The Bullets-Knicks rivalry in the 1970s, was one of the best rivalries in the NBA and represents something that has almost disappeared in the NBA, which are rivalries. The 1970s and 80s, you had the Celtics-Lakers, Celtics-Knicks, Celtic-76ers, 76ers-Bullets, Bullets-Knicks and perhaps a few other great rivalries in the NBA that you don’t see that much anymore in this league with the great history that it has. Baltimore and New York are roughly two-hundred miles from each other and these were two of the better franchises in the NBA in the early 1970s.

The Bullets were one of the better franchises in the NBA in the 1970s period, both in Baltimore and then later in Washington, actually Landover, Maryland to start the 1974 season. They relocated to Landover thinking they could hold onto the Baltimore market and capture the Washington market, but that’s a different story. And for the Bullets to achieve a lot of the success they had in that decade, four conference championships and winning the NBA Finals in 1978, they had to beat the Knicks to do that.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

CBC Sports: NHL 1982-Stanley Cup Finals-Game 4-Long Island Islanders @ Vancouver Canucks: Highlights

Source: CBC Sports- Game 4 of the 1982 Stanley Cup Finals 
Source: FRS Daily Journal Plus

The NHL and NBA are the only leagues where you’ll see a great team with a great record, great talent and coaching, versus a team that just barely made the playoffs and play each other in the league championship. And made the playoffs with a losing record and made the playoffs basically because more than half of the teams in each conference make the playoffs. The 1982 Islanders, were truly a great team, which is why they won their second straight Stanley Cup. But another reason why they won their second straight Stanley Cup in 1982, is because they played the Canucks. That only won 30-80 games in 1982 and got hot in the playoffs. Had they played a good team like the Edmonton Oilers or someone else, maybe they don’t win their second straight Stanley Cup in 82. They probably would’ve, but it would’ve been a much better Finals and looked like a real Stanley Cup Finals.
CBC Sports: NHL 1982- Stanley Cup Finals Game 40 Long Island Islanders @ Vancouver Canucks: Highlights

Friday, April 19, 2013

The North Star: Healthcare: Luke Elliot: The New-Left and the Ballot Box: How Progressives Can Get Their Policies Into Law

The US Left and the Ballot Box

I blogged about a month ago I guess that the way for Progressive/Socialists or Social-Democrats in America. Can get their policies into law whether its healthcare or pensions or voting. Is with a Federalist approach and not allow the Right to own American-Federalism and that Vermont should be the model. To look at but moving forward across the country at the state level instead of going to the Federal Government. Every time they want to see some new law or program passed. Vermont is probably the most Socialist state in the union, just like New Hampshire is probably the most Libertarian state in the. Union and Maryland my home state might be the most Liberal state in the union. And not to make fun of South Carolina but they are probably the capital of the Bible Belt and the religious-right in America. But what makes Vermont different from other Progressive states like lets say Massachusetts is that they. Believe in Federalism that is they are both Socialist and Federalist they believe in both.

Someone who is lets say a Socialist-Federalist thats not a contradiction necessarily as long as they believe in both. Federalism isn't about Leftist government or Rightist government but its about good government and that government closest to home is the best government. So you could have Socialist-Federalism and have Socialist policies in your state but that its your state thats creating those polices. Instead of Socialists from the Federal Government creating all of these new Federal programs and telling the states what they. Can do with their own money, what Vermont is saying with its very own single-payer health insurance program. Is that we do not need Uncle Sam to try to build our Socialist-Utopia for us that we can do that ourselves with our own money and our own people.

Vermont is saying that the Feds through failure of either inaction or not having the votes. Is failing to deliver the government that we want and that we at the state level can not only do that instead but create. The policies on our own and do not need Uncle Sam to try to do that for us.

ESPN: June 17th 1994- The OJ Simpson Ford Bronco Chase

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

I remember this very well, because I had just graduated from high school. And was in Delaware vacationing with my family and I believe I was watching the NBA Finals on NBC. And then of course NBC News breaks in with live coverage of this chase which was different from other Los Angeles car chases. Which of course aren’t rare in Los Angeles, but what made this care chase different was that it involved a celebrity and NBC News and other news organizations breaking into a championship series, or whatever they were showing and stopped showing, to cover this tabloid story. Is just another example and perhaps the biggest example of what news has become in America. At least TV news, where its not what’s important to cover that is important, but what is popular to cover and how you make the most money. Covering that story to spend so much time and energy covering one murder trial. Not that it shouldn’t of been covered, which of course the supporters of the coverage will say. But to cover it basically at the expense of every other news story thats going on.

So-called reality TV, which of course isn’t reality TV, but tabloid TV, didn’t start in the late 1990s or 2000, with Survivor on CBS. It started in the mid 1990s in 1994 with OJ Simpson. And his famous duel murders and his Trial of The Century. Before social networking and before Google, but right in the early days of cellphones and the Internet. And when cable news was becoming very important with the 24 hour news cycle. You also have to remember that OJ, was not just an actor, but an accomplished one and perhaps not someone you want doing your taxes for you, but smart enough and with the personality to get people’s attention and put the focus on him. He knew he was going to jail and perhaps never coming out and had money and a gun in his truck. And I guess was going to make a run for Mexico, but perhaps smart enough to know he probably wasn’t going to make it.

The Ford Bronco Chase, was the ultimate publicity stunt and so-called reality TV. But it wasn’t what is called reality TV, which is not reality TV, but tabloid TV. Where producers of those shows encourage people to act out to get the most ratings possible. But this chase was real reality TV. A grown man, who up to this point was a very well-liked and respected man. Who had a Hall of Fame NFL career and one of the top 5-10 running backs of all-time. Who put together a solid sportscasting career with NBC Sports and acting career and did commercials. Who was going through a horrible time, I imagine and perhaps feeling horribly guilty about his two murders and perhaps lost it and didn’t know what to do about it. But again, we are talking about an actor here and this could’ve simply been a publicity stunt. But this was real reality TV and not made up.

Kelly Loves Beauty: Fall Outfit- of-The Day- Skinny Denim Jeans in Boots

Source: Kelly Loves Beauty-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

“Okay so yeah, except for this girl, like totally sounding like a total valley girl, right,” I liked this video. I liked how she looked in this video and for a valley girl or at least someone who sounds like a valley girl, she looks really good in that outfit. Like a women who can fill out a sexy pair of skinny denim jeans, because she eats real food and takes care of herself and doesn’t starve herself. Which to say the least aren’t common stereotypes if not characteristics of valley girls. Which means that there are even sexy athletic looking valley girls. Britney Spears comes to mind real fast.

As far as this outfit and to be completely serious, nothing new or no new or real risk taking here. Not to put Kelly down, but skinny jeans in boots have been around for about ten-years now. A common look for sexy women especially in the fall and winter for both practical as well as stylish reasons. The practical reasons are perhaps less obvious. They keep women warm in bad cold weather. Their legs that is especially the skinny denim because how tight they are and do not leave much in any room for cold air get air to get in. And the boots are great to walk around in bad weather, because you get better traction.

The stylish reasons are obvious. I mean seriously what better way for a sexy women to show off her legs than in skinny jeans. Whether they are denim or leather, because again how tight they are and how they show off your legs. And then you throw in boots either over or under the jeans and you have a very sexy stylish look, that will make women who aren’t as sexy or dressing much more conservatively jealous. And have guys checking you out especially when you’re on the move.
Kelly Loves Beauty: Outfit-Of-The-Day- Skinny Denim Jeans in Boots

Thursday, April 18, 2013

C-SPAN: Professor Eric Foner- Lectures in History: Socialism in America

Source: C-SPAN- Columbia University History Professor, Eric Foner-
Source: FRS FreeStates Plus

I actually saw this lecture from Eric Foner back in the summer of 2012. And I would love to see a lecture from Eric Foner in person at some point. But what I want to do in this blog is to explain why socialism hasn’t quite caught on America. And the history of it in this country and where it is today. Which is actually alive and doing well considering how individualistic of a country America is both Liberals and Conservatives. And write about that as a non-Socialist, but someone on the Left whose interested in political philosophy and political history.

I agree with Eric Foner that socialism in the early twentieth century became about the Progressive Era of Teddy Roosevelt. And then later became the New Deal with his cousin Franklin. And actually got some, lets call them socialist welfare state or safety net programs into law. And then moved to the Fair Deal with Harry Truman and then later the great Society with Lyndon Johnson with more welfare state or safety net programs. And that socialism essentially became about the welfare state.

And having government do the basic human services that Socialists do not trust the private sector to do. But that the private sector and American capitalism was here to stay. That they should make the best of capitalism. And not try to destroy it, which is basically how Scandinavia deals with capitalism as well. But where I disagree with Historian Foner, is that socialism in the twentieth century graduated and became what we now know as liberalism today. That liberalism is somehow about the state. And government and what government can and should do for the people.

Liberalism has never been about the state or what government can do for the people. But socialism is that and always has been. And is about that the people together are better off than if we try to do everything for ourselves. Because for the people to be able to do as well as they can and for the economy to be as strong as possible, every American whose physically and mentally able should be able to get the skills. And the have the freedom to be as successful as they possibly can for the society to be as strong as possible.

And that government can help the people who’ve been left behind for whatever reason or reasons,get themselves the skills that they need so they to can be successful in life. Which is the liberal model for government at least as it relates to the economy. And there are plenty of Socialists in Congress today. Not just Senator Bernie Sanders who believe in the same things as Senator Sanders, but prefer to be called Progressives.

The reason today’s Progressives or Progressive Democrats call themselves Progressives and not Socialists or even Democratic Socialists, is because of how successfully the Partisan Right in America, have campaigned against Socialism, going back to the 1930s. So when a lot of Americans think of Socialists, they think of someone who believes in the state should own the means to production of society. In other words the economy and start nationalizing industries and enterprises and so forth.

Or they think of Communists even though today’s Socialists for the most part like Economist Richard Wolff might be an exception to this, aren’t interested in nationalizing industries for the most part. But perhaps basic human services that they do not believe that should be run for profit. In the areas of healthcare, health insurance, retirement, banking, energy. But that the economy for the most part should be in private hands.

All I need to prove my point that liberalism and socialism aren’t the same political animals, but with different labels is to look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Which is made up of eighty or so members of the U.S. House of Representatives. And a few members of the U.S. Senate, including Senator Bernie Sanders. Where these members of Congress probably agree with Senator Sanders 90-95% of the time. But prefer to be called Progressives. Because again of the negative stereotypes that come with socialism. But that Socialism is not only alive, but alive and well. And all the way up to the U.S. Congress including statewide in the U.S. Senate. Not just in progressive leaning House districts. And it will stay alive in America as long as it’s about the welfare state, education and the right to organize. And never becomes about nationalizing the economy.
C-SPAN: Professor Eric Foner- Lectures in History: Socialism in America

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

GoleFFTV: Video: Robert F. Kennedy Jr: How To Save American Democracy: How to Expand Freedom to all of America

When you are talking about Democracy, you need to know that there are not just one type of Democracy. But several forms including a Liberal-Democracy which if you are familiar with this blog. You know thats what I support and what I write about and what I promote almost everyday that I post a new. Blog unless I'm writing about something that doesn't have much to do with Liberal-Democracy. Liberal-Democracy is basically the right of the individual to live in freedom as long as they aren't hurting or taking away someone else's freedom. Power to the people to use a term from the 1960s, including the power to vote and vote for anyone we want to whose running. For office at least in the general election, so to use as an example so called term limits and taking the power away from the people. To elect our own U.S. Senators the most powerful people in Congress that represent our entire states. Only the President of the United States has more power, that would be Un Liberal-Democratic. Then you have Majoritarian-Democracy, California case in point is a Majoritarian-Democracy. Where laws are written even by the people themselves and only need a majority vote to pass. And they can pretty much write anything into law, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist whatever laws they want.

Then you have Social-Democracy which is a form of Majoritarian-Democracy but in a Progressive-Socialist form. Where the Federal Government would have a lot more responsibility to make sure that all Americans would be taken care of. And where the people would have less responsibility over their own lives from an economic as well as personal point of view. To govern our own lives because we would have this Collectivist-State to protect us from even ourselves. So its not just a matter of whether you support Democracy or not and hopefully you do at least from my. Perspective but what type of Democracy that you are talking about and what type of Democracy you are in favor of. And like I said what I want to do is to protect the current Liberal-Democracy that the United States has for the most part. But to expand it to the rest of the country, so when I see proposals from the Far-Right or Far-Left that would weaken our individual-freedom. To make our own decisions with our own lives, as long as we aren't hurting other individuals freedom. I write a post against that and why I'm against it.

As I blogged last Friday in satiric form I'll admit but my point was a serious one. You want to expand freedom to all Americas, then you have to contract ignorance. Educating the entire public to contract and at some point perhaps we could eliminate ignorance. So Gays, minorities and even majorities where we now have bigotry towards European-Americans from the Far-Left in this. Country and where immigrants aren't seen as invaders, non Christians from the Far-Right as well as Christians aren't seen as terrorists by the Far-Left. Where Gays aren't seen as immoral because they are attracted to the same gender. Its simple you contract ignorance in this country with a better education system and where people have the education to not only be independent. And be able to take care of themselves but now have the knowledge to see that people just because they have a different. Religious or racial or ethnic or national or sexual background. Aren't bad people because they are different from us and in most cases are good people like us. But just different and we would see less proposals in this country that would weaken our freedom. Because Americans would simply know better.

You want to talk about money as far as expanding Liberal-Democracy to everyone. Fine but its not money I want to eliminate from politics but its dark-money, campaign funds that we simply do. Not know about because the givers of that money are too embarrassed to let the public know about those contributions that were given out. So what I want is full disclosure in American-politics then again let the people decide whose worth representing them and whose not. Along with universal education for all and no more drifting towards a Socialist or Theocratic-State. That would see individual-freedom as a threat to the country but would embrace it. And then we would really have a Liberal-Democracy that works for everyone.

Catarina Troiano: Video: The Doors Live 1968

Catarina Troiano: Video: The Doors Live 1968

I’m thinking the cameraman, or perhaps the camerawomen, really liked Jim Morrison and was really attracted to him. Because in the first two minutes of this show alone, you see several closeups on Jim Morrison’s leather legs and leather suit, sitting on the stool with his legs sticking out in his skin-tight black leather jeans and black leather jacket, with his concho belt. It has been said that Morrison, wore the skin-tight leather pants, leather jeans really, with the concho belt, because he wanted to highlight his crotch. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense, because if you watch this show, or Live at The Hollywood Bowl, or The Doors in Copenhagen, or The Doors in London, The Doors on Ed Sullivan, just to use as examples, there are several closeups upfront of Morrison in his leather suit and right on his legs, butt and crotch. I mean if you’re actually attracted to the man, watching all of this footage is a great way to see him.

As far as this show, I think it’s The Lizard King as it his best. Just wish this show was in color and since it was done in 1968, that would’ve been a fairly easy thing to do. But with Morrison, you get great vocals and his role-playing and acting and moving around and the dancing. And Ray Manzarek, if anything who had a better singing voice than Morrison, at least singing blues, doing a great job on the keyboards. When The Music is Over, and Love Me Two Times, I think are their best songs in this show. Love Me Two Times, comes with a great music video as well. And you have Morrison going off the cuff and doing a little story telling as well. And they finish with, well The End, what else. Which is their great war song, even though it wasn’t written directly for the Vietnam War. But considering this was 1968, the timing of this song was simply perfect.

As what can be said about a lot of The Doors performances, I just wish they were shot in color. Which is one reason why Oliver Stone’s version of The Doors, whatever you think of the movie, is actually very important. Because it gives you a very good idea of what The Lizard King was like in color. Even with Val Kilmer, being a much larger and taller man than Jim Morrison. But it would be nice to see a colorized version of a lot of these performances. But the sound of these performances and how Morrison sounded and how the band played, is very good, even in black and white. Which doesn’t affect the sound of these shows. But the shows would’ve been better had they been done in color. Like with The Hollywood Bowl, Ed Sullivan, Smothers Brothers, Jonathan Winters. And maybe a colorized version of this show, will be available at some point.

Monday, April 15, 2013

CBS News: Walter Cronkite- Announces The Death of President John F. Kennedy

Source: FRS Daily Journal Plus- Longtime CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite-
Source: FRS Daily Journal Plus

Newscasters and journalists in general are trained to never show their feelings and give commentary. That old Joe Friday saying of just the fact. For all of you Dragnet fans, but these people are exactly that, people and they have feelings too. And when you’re reporting on the death and not just death, but the assassination of someone you personally know, like, respect and even admirer, all things that Walter Cronkite felt about John Kennedy and then throw in the fact they were the same age and from the same generation, how you not show your human side in this situation.

And you’re reporting on the assassination of someone who is just 46 and you’re same age, to go along with all the other factors, I would’ve been disappointed had Cronkite not given people at little into what he was feeling about this horrible tragedy. Cronkite was at the top of his game during CBS News’s coverage of the JFK assassination that he anchored. And part of Cronkite’s greatness was that he was a human being the whole and not afraid to let others know that.
CBS News: Walter Cronkite- Announces The Death of President John F. Kennedy

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Richard D. Wolff: Video: "A Cure for Capitalism": Why Liberal-Economics is a better Altennative to Crony-Capitalism Then State-Ownership

I know I'm putting this simplistically but to quote lets call him Marxist-economist Richard Wolff not to put him down but thats exactly what's he's calling for in this speech. A Marxist State-Ownership economic system where things like small-business's would also be run by the state and in this case the. Largest state in the world the United States Government to sum up economist Wolff he's calling for State-Ownership to replace American-Capitalism. Or Liberal yes Liberal-economics, private-enterprise economic-freedom and so fourth. He's not calling for European-Capitalism or Scandinavian-Capitalism both areas full of developed Capitalist economic-systems. They just do it differently depending on the country. Economist Wolff is not calling for a Democratic-Socialist economic-system. Where most of the economy would be private and what the Central-Governments job would be to meet the basic needs of. Society that Socialists who do not trust the private-sector to handle, basic human-services. But economist Wolff is saying that we can't trust the private-sector or individuals to do anything for themselves. And that the Central-Government needs to have all of the power in society. Basically other then voting and basic personal-freedoms.

Why would this be a bad idea, well thats kinda like asking me why shouldn't you stick your hand in a burning fire. Or why you shouldn't go days without food or water, the answers should be obvious. But for the purpose of this blog. I'll explain why, name a developed country in the world that doesn't have property-rights or a private-sector. There isn't one and the number of countries that have State-Owned economies across the board are very small. We are talking about the Communist Republic of Korea, maybe Syria, perhaps a few countries in Africa. We are talking about the poorest countries in the world and in a lot of cases countries loaded in natural resources and human potential. But where the government squanders it because they are busy trying to figure out how to centrally plan an economy. How to run a responsible government as well as an economy at the same time. Because when you take incentive, competition and profit motive out of an economy. That unless the workers are Saints, they tend to lose the motivation to be successful and productive. Because they know government will have their back.

America already knows how to have a successful economy because we've don this before. It takes a modern infrastructure-system so people can get around in an affordable and efficient manner. An education-system thats producing lots of workers every year who have the skills to be successful in life. A tax and regulatory-system that subsidizes success and lets failures fail and a public-assistance system that. Empowers people to be able to get themselves back on their feet so they can once again take care of themselves and not have to live off of public assistance. Thats the alternative to Crony-Capitalism and its called Liberal-Capitalism or Liberal-Economics and I only needed seven lines to explain it.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

MC American President: Video: Joint Session of Congress: President Lyndon Johnson Speech on Voting Rights

This was Lyndon Johnson at his best and not many other American politicians did this as well or better if any. Then President Lyndon Johnson when it came to speaking about civil-rights, voting-rights equal-rights all around. Because he got to the whole core of the debate by laying out what right does government at any level have to deny people their constitutional-rights based on race. Which was the whole point of the Civil-Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting-Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair-Housing Law of 1968. Legislation that got Bipartisan support for it in both chambers of Congress that wouldn't of been able to pass without that Bipartisan support. And the reason why these laws were so important was because of the fact that African-Americans and perhaps other. Racial-minorities were being denied their constitutional-rights in the South and perhaps other parts of the country. Because of their race and complexion and for no good reason, just because of their race and complexion.

HBO: Video: George Carlin: It's Bad For Ya: Stupid Bullshit: Imagine a World Without Stupid Bullshit

Imagine a world without stupid bullshit, hey thats the title of this blog sometimes it helps to pay attention to what you are writing. Also sometimes it can cost you to pay attention to what you are writing because you might think. Damn I'm a bad writer and if you are wondering about the language, well the title of the blog should've served you well in figuring out this just. Might not be a PG13 blog that maybe this might be for adults only and if that wasn't a big enough clue. Here's a warning for you that you might be part of the stupid bullshit thats a big problem in America right now. Just a little friendly advice but getting to the blog. Imagine a world without stupid bullshit or hell a world without stupid people all together. And as you are imaging that as you are reading this, imagine all of the problems we wouldn't have and the. Stupid things we wouldn't have to listen to, another words imagine a world without Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Michael Moore or Melissa Harris-Perry.

So we are now in this world, a no stupid zone to replace Bill O'Reilly's no spin zone. Oh Billy wouldn't be allowed in this world either because it would be a world without stupid bullshit. Think about and I know what you are thinking, it would be a pretty boring world. I mean who the hell would we have to make fun of without stupid people. Imagine electing politicians and having other public officials who actually know what the hell they are doing and actually qualified. For their jobs, that means Congress would get a lot more work done. And as a Liberal to me a productive Congress might mean them passing a lot of laws that take away our freedoms. But again remember its a world without stupidity, a bunch of braniac's who where glasses that are so. Thick that without them they couldn't see their hands in from of their faces. But they are smart so they are passing a lot of smart productive legislation and President Obama being the smart guy that he is signing all of it. Except when he has even smarter ideas.

Imagine a world without a fiscal cliff because Congress and the President are too smart to put the country through that. Imagine a world without a sequester because again the President and Congress are too smart too smart to put the country through that. Imagine a world without racism or any form or bigotry where humans are never owned by anyone. Where people who are in love aren't denied marriage licenses. All of this could happen if we just catch and lockup all of the stupid people and send them to Siberia or some place. And let the smart people run the world.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

New York Times: Editorial Board: Mental Illness in California Prisons: How to Prevent Future Tragedies

Mental Illness in California Prisons -

When people are convicted of crimes and sent to prison it then becomes the responsibility of the state at tax-payers expense to look after their welfare. And to make sure that their basic needs are met and there are several different ways of doing that. Not to make sure inmates are living in paradise or something because they are in prison and not suppose to want to be there. But not to be tortured and receive cruel and unusual punishments but for them to have a humane not great life in prison. And when we see so many prison inmates who commit suicide and a lot of times that comes from long terms in isolation. Or prison inmates who have mental conditions and probably should be in mental institutions. Prison mental institutions even, the state whatever the state level of government is not living up to its responsibility to. Meet the basic needs of its inmates and instead imposing cruel and unusual punishment against their inmates which is something that we shouldn't tolerate as a society.

I know prisons are expensive and hard to run especially in tough economic and budget times especially when they are dependent on tax-payers for its finances. Which is why I do not believe that prisons should be dependent on tax-payers at all for its financing at least from general-revenue. That if we were really smart about incarceration and crime and punishment in America. Most if not all of our prisons would finance themselves even as it relates to healthcare including mental-healthcare. Because inmates would be expected and even required to get and education and a job while in prison and working to run. The prisons with real prison-enterprises and so fourth putting inmates to work so they can cover their cost of living in prison. Even as it relates to healthcare including mental-healthcare. Making and selling things that could be used in the prison. Or by other government agencies and even in the private market as well.

I understand that running prisons and making them more humane is even more expensive then they are now at least in the short term. Which is why I do not believe tax-payers who are already strapped in this tough economy should be required to pay more for them. But we still have a responsibility to run humane prisons in America which is why putting inmates to work so they can pay their own bills. Is the most cost-effective and humane way to finance prisons in America.

HBO: Video: Real Time With Bill Maher: Debating the U.S. Constitution Including The Second Amendment

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Before I write what hopefully will be a tasteful satire about gun control, (no promises) I just want to layout that I’m in favor of what I call commonsense gun control. That a majority of Americans support that’s aimed at preventing crazy and ignorant people, as well as criminals from getting guns in America. Not aimed at preventing the country as a whole from getting and owning guns in America. Just the stupid and crazy people as well as the criminals.

Having said all of that in, (wow five lines and a whole word) for anyone whose keeping score at home and if you are you have too much free time. That unless we no longer have a need what I call stupid/crazy control in America, that has less dumb-asses and nuts walking free on the street, look I’m not in favor of locking people up for being stupid or crazy, just when they act on those things and innocent people on the street are hurt as a result, but unless we do a better job of educating people in this country so we have fewer dropouts and less unsuccessful adults, we are going to have to have the Right to Self-Defense in America.

As long as we have people believing that can’t make it in mainstream society because they lack the skills to do so and go crazy as a result and decide to take their frustrations out on innocent people, children even, we aren’t going to have enough law enforcement to be able to protect everyone. Because unless you want to live in a police state, law enforcement will always be outnumbered by the non-law enforcement public in America. And part of that public are people who believe the government is out to get them. And they need to strike before they get stricken and innocent people are hurt as a result.

Like I said I’m for what I call basic commonsense gun control America. But without real stupid/crazy-control and as long as criminals can get guns on the black market when honest people are waiting for their background check to clear and we have so many ignorant and crazy people on the street we are going to continue to see Newtown’s, Aurora’s, Houston’s, Atlanta’s, Tucson’s even. You think a U.S. Representative being shot in the head two-years ago would’ve woken us up from our coma about this.

And Gabbie Giffords too was shot by an ignorant crazy person who for the rest of his life will be remembered for shooting a U.S. Representative in the head. Because as a society we weren’t able to figure out that this man was not quite all there. Perhaps three beers short of a six-pack and we weren’t able to get him the help he needed that would’ve prevented Representative Giffords from being shot in the head by him.

You can pass all the gun-control laws possible, but as long as we have too many people in this country who lack the basic skills to be successful in life and live in their own world mentally, so far away that the Star Trek Enterprise couldn’t even find them, (for all you Star Trek fans out there) passing any new gun control laws will be as useful as throwing a glass of water on a burning house. Instead save that glass of water for when you are thirsty.

And we are going to continue to lose innocent people children even to unnecessary gun violence because we are not educating enough people with the skills to succeed in life and not diagnosing enough people who need mental healthcare in order to function in a responsible way. Gun control, again gun control and not people control is a solution, but only one solution to a much larger problem in America. What we really need is stupid and crazy control.

What we should do along with commonsense gun control that prevents criminals whether they are stupid, or crazy, or both, (now there’s a warped personality for you) but continues to allow sane responsible intelligent people from continuing to own guns. As long as they continue to meet that criteria and don’t hurt innocent people. But to go along with commonsense gun control, we need stupid and crazy control. Isolate the crazy and stupid people who live in their own worlds and don’t know what the hell they are doing from mainstream society. And let good responsible people live free.

HBO: Video: Real Time With Bill Maher: Gun Rights vs Privacy: "Its Not Gun Rights Thats Under Attack But Everything Else": Why we Need Ignorance Control More Then Gun Control

Before I write a satire about gun-control, hopefully in a tasteful way but no promises. I just want to make it clear, even as clear as the Potomac River if thats possible that I support. What I call commonsense gun-control aimed at keeping guns away from criminal and crazy people. Not aimed at getting guns out of the hands of responsible adults in America. Meaning the rest of the country.

But having said all of that, wow five lines I also want to point out that without a better mental-healthcare and education system in this country. And we do a better job of keeping guns off of the black-market so when criminals figure out they won't be able to buy guns legally. They'll need to get them illegally, passing any gun-control will be as useful as throwing a glass of water on a. Burning house and then standing there wondering like a genius why is the fire still burning. Well Einstein because you didn't do enough to put out the fire, is that obvious enough for you. And the same thing with gun-control, as long as we have so many ignorant and crazy people in this country. We are going to continue to have Newtown's and Aurora's, Houston's and so fourth not just innocent people dying. But innocent children dying because of the stupidity or craziness of one person or a group of people. And is something that by now we should've woken up from our coma about this, gee I don't two years ago. When a U.S. Representative was shot in the head.

That what we really need is stupid or ignorance-control, perhaps less Republicans in Congress would be a start. But until November of 2014 gets here, we need to be doing things that prevent people from getting access to guns. And gun-control is a start but we need less people who are in this country who lack the basic skills to make it in life. And go on these wild fantasies and think everyone is out to get them and so fourth. And I understand why so many Democrats are pushing gun-control both from political and from policy reasons. But I do not believe enough of them understand why we have so many ignorant crazy people committing these. Tragedies and I mean I would outlaw stupidity if I could and even craziness if I thought that would do any good. But short of that we need less nutty people on the streets and more of them on medication and even. Institutionalized if necessary and that means more funding for our mental-healthcare system in this country.

As long as we have people arming themselves for the new civil-war or whatever war they feel may be coming. And we continue to lose people to high school dropout ness, lets say because they think someone is out to get them. And we fail to recognize these issues before they become tragedies and we miss warning signs about people with serious mental-issues. We are going to continue to lose innocent people children even to gun-violence. And without stupid/crazy-control, gun-control will be like throwing a glass of water on a burning house.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Thom Hartmann Show: Video: Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan: "What You Need to Know": What Progressives Do Not Like About Thatcher/Reagan Conservatism

Thatcher & Reagan: What You Need to know - YouTube

I'm not a Conservative so I'm not going to say whether or not Margaret Thatcher was an ideal Conservative or not but to layout what I think and know about her. And Progressives hate which I do not think is too strong of a word and why Conservatives in America and Britain love her. And to know anything about Lady Thatcher you need to know what the situation in the United Kingdom was before. She became Prime Minsister of the United Kingdom and the situation was when she left.

When Maggie Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 Britain similar to the situation America was in economically in 1981. When Ronald Reagan came into power was in a huge mess. With high debt and deficits, with high unemployment, with so many Brits dependent on the Central Government for their. Economic well being, thats what the Socialists in the Labour Party left for the Conservatives when they took over in 1979. British-Socialism which at the time that Maggie Thatcher came into power in 1979 and has moderated since. Otherwise Tony Blair doesn't come into power in 1997 and even having to admit that some of the Conservative economic-policies worked as he was running for Prime Minister. But before that British-Socialism was almost completely about the state especially the welfare-state and what government. Could do for the people and actually take care of them and not about what the people could do for themselves. Even if they lacked the education to be able to take care of themselves. How can government empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Which became the Labour Party under Tony Blair.

The biggest reason why I believe that Progressives or Social-Democrats either in Britain or America. Do not like Maggie Thatcher, is because she and Ron Reagan helped transformed the at the time two largest. Social-Democrats parties in both countries and moved them away from their Socialist-policies. At least at the leadership level and with Maggie Thatcher from the Conservatives, produces Tony Blair of the. Labours and with Ron Reagan from the Republicans, produces Bill Clinton and later Barack Obama from the Democrats. Still waiting to see whether or not Bill Clinton and Barack Obama produce a Republican as President whose more mainstream and not so Statist on social-issues. But the book is not completely written about that yet. Because of Maggie and Ronnie, economic-Leftism became about government empowering people to take care of themselves and not empowering government to take. Care of the people.

Thats why Progressive/Social-Democrats whether they are in Britain or in America simply do not like either Maggie or Ronnie. Because before those two came to power in the West, welfare-state Socialism was the dominant economic-philosophy. And government was about what government can do for the people rather then what the people can do for themselves. And it forced Leftist-Parties in the West to rethink and reform their economic policies.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Matt Libman: Reverend Jesse Jackson at The 1984 Democratic National Convention- Early Days of Occupy Wall Street?

I'm sure there are people who believe that Occupy Wall Street didn't start until the fall of 2011. With the protests from Progressive groups against Wall Street and corporations and so fourth. Well thats when the name Occupy Wall Street came into this existence but this Leftist movement lets. Say has been around since the mid to late 1960s and started with the antiwar movement that was also in favor of the Great Society. It became a Social-Democratic pro welfare-state and anti-agression movement, basically anti military and even anti law enforcement. Movement that basically believed that the job of government was to protect people both economically and to a certain extent. A faction in it believes to this say that the job of government is to protect us culturally as well. The whole political correctness movement is part of what I call the New-Left in America which is what Occupy Wall Street is today and has become. The anti hate-speech movement, people who want to ban hate speech, the prohibition-movement people who want to ban soft drinks and junk food. Meat being used as food, trees from being used to build homes and so fourth. The Atheist-Left people who would probably like to ban religion in America is also part of the New-Left as well.

Jesse Jackson who I doubt is with the Prohibitionists on the New-Left and as a Reverend is certainly not part of the Atheist-Left. Someone whose more Liberal then Statist on social issues and perhaps not Statist at all on social issues. Represents the New-Left in America very well when it comes to economic and foreign policy. The New-Left in America is basically the George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and the broader Left in America. Thats spread across over other Leftist parties in America. The FDR/LBJ wing of the Democratic Party that we need to be strong at home as well as abroad and believe in things like strong national defense and. Law enforcement to go with a strong and robust welfare-state with all sorts of Federal programs to. Take care of people is all but gone in America, some of those Democrats are still around and I'm related to at least one of them. But that movement has basically been replaced by the McGovern New-Left wing in the Democratic Party. The pro welfare-state anti-agression wing of the Democratic Party.

One of the reasons why I respect Rev. Jackson so much even though we come from different wings of the Democratic Party. Is that he's someone who loves America but understands that to love a country you also need to know what's working well and what's not. So you know where you are doing well and where you need to improve which is what he was doing in this speech. Saying that it wasn't "morning in America again" for all of America.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Intelligence Squared Debates: Video: Debate: The Two-Party System is Making America Ungovernable

Red Brain vs Blue Brain
I read a blog tonight on the socialist blog called The North Star which is also on WordPress and easy to find. About the United States two-party system and that we only officially have a two-party system but that we really have a six party system instead. That the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both essentially have three different political ideological factions in both parties .And I agree with that, but I would put in different terms and perhaps sound less partisan. That instead of the both parties being pro-business capitalist parties which they are, but every developed country in the world has at least two different major pro-business capitalist parties in it. Otherwise they wouldn’t be developed countries. But contrary to what this other blogger said the Democratic Party is not made up of pro-business Democrats, or Neo-Liberals and Progressives. And the Republican Party is not made up of Libertarians, Neoconservatives and essentially bigots. That it’s a lot more complicated than that.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, has three different factions in it. And they are primarily together in one large major party out of fear. The fear that if they are not united the other party will have all the power in Washington, DC, Texas, Michigan ,or wherever. And that they agree with each other on enough to keep the party together. But might not even agree with each other on more things than they disagree with each other, but just agree on enough to keep the two parties together. Which could easily change which I’ll argue later, but the Democratic Party even though they are officially the Liberal Party in America and the Republican Party is officially the Conservative Party in America, America is no longer Liberal vs Conservative and perhaps it never was. That what we really are as a country is Left vs Right or Leftist vs Rightist. The Left, being a broad coalition of different political ideological factions and the right being a coalition of several different political ideological factions on the Right.

The Democratic Party a party I’m a proud member of represents the entire Left-Wing in America. Liberals, on the Center-Left where I am the New-Democratic Coalition in the Democratic Party. The lets call it the Bill Clinton wing of the party that Barack Obama today now leads. That saved the Democratic Party twenty years ago and made it once again a governing party that has now won 4-6 presidential elections. But unfortunately from my perspective aren’t the whole Democratic Party. Then we have lets call it the

Progressive/Democratic-Socialist/Social-Democratic/Green Coalition in the Democratic Party. That are basically only Democrats so they can have a major voice in a major leftist party, but are more ideologically comfortable in the Democratic Socialist, or Green Party. And then we have what I call a moderate-liberal coalition in the Democratic Party. Who are Democrats because they are more liberal than conservative, but like to move more slowly when it comes to governing. And have a skepticism about progress and do not like moving quickly and taking hard stands.

Then you have the Republican Party who are actually more interesting to me as both a Democrat and a political blogger. Because not only do they represent the entire Right-Wing in America, from the Center-Right, people who are Classical Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians, what’s left of the Barry Goldwater coalition in the party. But of course unfortunately from their respective. People who I tend to respect and even friends with some of them, but the GOP also represents the Far-Right, Christian-Theocrats and Neoconservatives who believe America is too free and too Liberal. And they believe need new restrictions on how people live their own lives for the sake of the
country. As well as the Anarcho-Libertarian Coalition the Ron Paul Wing of the GOP.

And even though we officially have two major political parties in America, we essentially have six smaller parties in this country. And a lot of them from the Far-Left to the Far-Right call one of the major parties their home. In the future I’ll write a blog about what I believe should replace the two-party system, a system I believe should be replaced. With something that represents all major political ideological factions in the country.