Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1986-5-03-GOW-Anaheim Angels @ Milwaukee Brewers: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

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.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Dennis Prager-Leftism is a Different Approach to Americanism

Source: Thom Hartmann-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

When did Dennis Prager become an expert on the American Left? The man is not even an expert on something that he claims to be which is a conservative. He’s at best a Religious Conservative who bases his political beliefs on his religious beliefs. Which is not conservative in a political sense. Dennis Prager is not Barry Goldwater, but probably has more in common with Rick Santorum, or Michelle Bachmann and perhaps other Tea Party Confederates. Who believe Barack Obama is an illegal alien and a Muslim-Socialist or something. Than he has in common with real Conservatives in America.

As far as leftism being a different approach to America. Of course we do not have a dominant political philosophy in America. No functioning liberal democracy does. Other than maybe liberal democracy itself. A society based on liberal values dealing with individual and constitutional rights and individual freedom. And that includes both personal and economic freedom. If that’s the case, then the Center-Left has won and Liberals have their liberal democracy known as America. But one question because it gets to what you mean about leftism. Because leftism is a collection of different leftist political philosophies going from liberalism on the Center-Left to Socialists and Communists and Anarchists on the Far-Left. So when you are talking about what you might call leftism, it helps whoever is listening to you to know what form of leftism are you talking about.

But also again go back to liberal democracy. There’s not just one Left version of what America is and what it should be, but multiple versions. Also there’s multiple versions or rightists views or rightism if you want to call it that, multiple rightists views going from a very fundamentalist religious theocratic view of what America is and what it should be. To more of a conservative or conservative libertarian view of what America is and what it should be. So of course there are different views on what America is and what it should be.

Dennis Prager and Thom Hartmann, Prager especially were not making news in this interview. By saying there is a Leftist view of America or a Rightist view of America. The only news here for anyone whose not already aware of this, is forget about the Left, because seriously when Dennis Prager gives these critiques about the Left let’s get real, because he’s talking about Liberals and what he believes liberalism is. Something and people he knows as little about as fish know how to drive trucks. Not an expert on anything related to the American Left.
Thom Hartmann: Dennis Prager- Leftism is a Different Approach To Americanism

Monday, October 14, 2013

The North Star: Opinion- Dario Cancovic- Capitalist Oligarchy and Socialist Democracy

Source: Portside.Org- Marxists?
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

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.
The School of Life: Political Theory- Karl Marx

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1985-GOW-6/22-New York Yankees @ Detroit Tigers: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

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.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Globalist: Opinion: Uwe Bott: “The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform”: Over a Government Shutdown?

Our Founding Liberals
The Globalist: Opinion: Uwe Bott: “The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform”: Over a Government Shutdown?

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 (for lack of a better word) unless they are able to kill a law that has already been settled by the U.S Supreme Court and a general election where President Obama is reelected to go along with most if not of the members of Congress in the House and Senate, 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.

Classic MLB 11: Video: ABC Sports: MLB 1981-ALDS-Game 3-Kansas City Royals @ Oakland Athletics: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The expanded MLB Playoffs is not the problem I have with the MLB Playoffs in 1981 in the American League and National League. Its how they did it which is the problem. With the teams having the best records in first and second halves of the season in each division qualifying for the playoffs in each league. Which meant four teams making the playoffs in both leagues, which is how MLB did it from 1995-2011. Which again I don’t have a problem with, but how they did it.

Instead of having the teams that had the best records in their divisions for the entire season and have the two second place teams in each league qualifying as wildcards in each league, they had the best teams in the first halves of the season, play the teams with the best record of the second half of the season. Which meant teams like the Cincinnati Reds who had the best overall record in the NL West in 1981, missed the NL Playoffs. Because they didn’t have the best record in their division in either the first or second half of 1981.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

RT America: Anissa Noauai Interviewing Noam Chomsky- ‘Democrats are Really Moderate Republicans’

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: RT America: Anissa Noauai Interviewing Noam Chomsky- ‘Democrats are Really Moderate Republicans’

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 something I’m personally insulted by as a Liberal Democrat, 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 Liberal or New Democratic Coalition that I come from. The FDR Progressive coalition that people like Senator Tom Harkin come from. Then you have the Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, people like Noam Chomsky, or Senator Bernie Sanders. 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. We aren’t a moderate party, but a politically diverse party that tends to be led by Liberals and Progressives, at least when we win.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

American Feud: Noam Chomsky- Adam Smith and The Invisible Hand

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: American Feud: Noam Chomsky- Adam Smith and The Invisible Hand

Not exactly breaking news that Noam Chomsky is not a fan of Adam Smith. Noam Chomsky describes his own politics as libertarian-socialist. The key word being socialist when it comes to his economic philosophy. With Adam Smith being the God when it comes to Libertarians and economic Libertarians when it comes to economic philosophy. To go along with Milton Friedman. That government should essentially be out of the economy with countries essentially free to trade with each other at will with no restrictions.

Adam Smith, is the Milton Friedman, or Ayn Rand for the Libertarians, but from three-hundred years ago in the 1700s. Someone who believed that money and economics should flow freely. Without any government intervention. That countries and business’s should be free to trade with each other without having to deal with tariffs. And of course Noam Chomsky being a Libertarian Socialist, (which is not an Oxymoron) to say he hates that economic philosophy would not be an understatement. because of the job business’s is to make money. Even if people get hurt as a result.

Noam Chomsky, who I at least don’t seen as a Marxist, would at the very least I believe eliminate most if not all for-profit private corporations. Especially multi-national for-profit private corporations. Leave in small business’s and create an economy where government didn’t run and own business’s, for the most part, but where the employees would own stock in the companies they work at. And even have a real say beyond their unions how they business’s that they work for are run. Which are called employee cooperatives.

In case anyone is interested my own personal economic philosophy. I like free trade, I like profit motives, I like for-profits, I like employee cooperatives, I like having a public safety net, but I would reform the current one that we have. I like the regulatory state, but again I would reform that as well. But as any good economist will tell you it’s to have a vibrant economy where the most people possible in the country can do possible you really need to have a mixture of everything that works well.

You have to have profit motive for people and companies to have incentive to be productive and successful. Which is why education is not only so important, but it’s essential that people be encouraged to either finish their education, or further their education. So they can do as well as they possibly can. Which benefits everyone involved. You need free trade to have countries competing with each other so they’re economies are productive as possible. But also so they can sell as many of their products as they possibly can. Which is why low tariff rates are critical.

I like employee cooperatives, because again as a Liberal I like decentralization of power both in the public and private sectors. Plus cooperatives gives employees real incentive beyond their salary, or hourly wage and whatever benefits they receive to be as productive as possible. The better they personally do and their company, the more money they are going to make. Because they’re literally now stockholders in the company that they work for. I believe in the public safety net, because again the for-profit private sector wants to make money. And assisting people who are down is not profitable. Private charity, even with government out-of the picture, can only do so much. But the safety net, just shouldn’t be public charity, but a system that empowers people to get on their own feet and no longer need public charity at all.

I believe in the regulatory state, because again when you have for-profit private economic system, business’s best interest is not always the public’s. Polluting their waste and having low safety standards and low wages and benefits for their employees, to use as examples, plus whatever taxpayer subsidies they get from government, improves their bottom line. Which is why you need a limited responsible government to step in and set the rules that has everyone’s best interest at heart, especially the public’s. So you have basic safety standards that benefits employees and consumers. Environmental standards that benefit everyone. A living wage so low-skilled workers aren’t so dependent on public assistance and private charity for their cost of living.

As a Liberal I believe in liberal economics. Or liberal capitalism, which really until the 2000s is how America became the economic superpower of the world. Where you have private individuals able to decide where they work for, or even able to start their own private companies. Where you have a regulatory state to see that profit motives don’t hurt employees, consumers and the environment. Where you have a safety net for people who truly need it. And hopefully empowers them to get themselves off of public assistance all together. And where we trade with other countries and invest in other countries as they invest in America with low tariffs. When you have big government trying to do everything themselves, or practically no government at all, is where you see economic collapses. Like with the Marxist states and the Great Depression from the 1930s.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

TYT Sports: Video: Worst NBA Players of All Time to Win Championship

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

For me it would be former Boston Celtics center Greg Kite from the mid and late 1980s. Who was a solid backup center as far as rebounding and post defense. But this isn’t the list of worst players to ever play in the NBA, but to win the NBA Championship. And for me at least off the top of my head Greg Kite was the Celtics third-string center at this point. Because he was basically no offensive threat at all who had no outside shot. And even had trouble making shots close to the basket when he was open and got a pass from Larry Bird or someone. Who even had trouble putting offensive rebounds back in the basket as well. Who was a third-string center so that alone says a lot.

The list of the players that the people on this show listed, are perhaps the worst players to win an NBA championship in the last fourteen years, or since 2000. And perhaps that is because their knowledge of NBA basketball only goes back that far. But the NBA Finals has been around since 1948 or so. So their list isn’t very deep.