Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, December 18, 2015

The Nation: Opinion- Rebecca Vallas & Melissa Boteach- Paul Ryan Just Accidentally Made a Great Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Am I missing something here, or has The Nation come back down to Planet Earth and finally just left Planet Utopia where there’s no such thing as war, poverty, bigotry, everything that most people see as bad? Because lately they’ve seemed to have grown up and moderated somewhat. While Salon and the others on the New-Left, are still fighting against the establishment, American capitalism, wealth, Caucasians and everything they seem to hate. Paul Ryan and The Nation, just made the conservative case for raising the minimum wage. You could argue that it is liberal and progressive as well. But here’s the conservative case.

You want fewer people on Welfare and Unemployment, then paychecks have to be worth more than Welfare and Unemployment checks. People need to know they can make more money working than not working and still getting the benefits if not more benefits working than not working. Including the work experience, job training, etc, their kids seeing their parents with a job and not needing Food Assistance. Welfare and Unemployment, should just be an insurance policy that people collect from when they’re out-of-work and don’t have the skills needed to get a good job. But while they’re on Welfare, they’re getting those skills, but also taking an entry-level job that pays more than not working.

And I know I’m going to here that government shouldn’t set wages and let the free market do that instead. What free market? Employers, big part of the private market, but without their customers and employees, they’re out of business. The people who make that the so-called free market argument, aren’t talking about a free market, for a couple of reasons. Because they believe in business subsidies and welfare coming from taxpayers. And they don’t want the other two-thirds of the so-called free market involved in how much they should compensate their employees. They want a business management market, where they’re in complete control. No regulators and where they get bailed out by taxpayers when they screw up.

Attach today’s minimum wage to people on Welfare, but still give them their other benefits and add education, job training and requiring people to take jobs that they’re qualified for even if they don’t pay a lot while they’re still getting their public benefits. Including the childcare and education, as well as livable minimum wage, more people will be working and fewer people not working. Include a credit for small employers so they don’t get burned by it. And people will see that working is a hell of a lot better than collecting public assistance checks with all the benefits that comes with it.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

POLITICO Magazine: Jesse Rifkin- Paul Ryan and The Long History of Political Beards

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: POLITICO Magazine: Jesse Rifkin- Paul Ryan and The Long History of Political Beards

When I first saw new Speaker of The House Paul Ryan and his new beard I guess a week ago, I thought, ‘great, here’s another political faker wannabe. Someone who wants to fit in with the Millennial hipsters, or whoever else. And will follow whatever the current cool fad is.’ To be honest with you, I doubt he’s still wearing that beard a month from now. Sure! It will keep his face warm when he goes back to freezing Wisconsin and perhaps help him get through another disappointing Green Bay Packers playoff loss.

But he’s got to deal with both Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and to a certain extent House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when she needs to him to bail him out on things like getting votes on things that the House Tea Party doesn’t believe in. Like paying for government, to use as an example. And paying our debts, which is really what the debt ceiling is about. Officially acknowledging that you have a government debt. He’s got to deal with people who are never afraid to crack a joke. Especially when they know that person can’t hurt them or fire them.

All of these leader’s all have quick-wits and sense of humors and he’s friendly with all of them. which could kill him with the Tea Party. The next handshake with President Obama, could cost Speaker Ryan his speakership. Senator Robert Bennet, who at the time at least was one of the most conservative members of Congress, lost his Senate seat in a Republican primary in 2010. Because he was caught shaking hands with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. They’re all going to take shots at his beard, at least in private. And with Mitch McConnell, those shots might actually come from a gun. He’s from Guntucky after all.

I believe one of the things that Paul Ryan has going for him is that he comes off as real and as someone who Joe and Mary Average can relate to. He comes from an Midwestern Irish-Catholic background, who needed student loans to get through college. Whose had a government job most of his working life. This is not someone who comes off as being better than everyone else who feels he has something to prove. He’s someone who has worked very hard to get where he is, because he’s had to.

Unlike, gee I don’t know, just throwing out a name here, but try George W. Bush. Just to use as an example. And the Speaker’s beard to me as it does for a lot of guys who aren’t lumberjacks, or rednecks, or bikers, or cowboys, headbangers, football players, it just looks phony to me. And someone who looks like they want to be someone else. Paul Ryan, should be Paul Ryan. A very bright Irish-Catholic guy from Wisconsin whose gotten to the highest point in Congress by being Paul Ryan. Not by trying to convince people he’s someone other than Paul Ryan.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The Nation: Opinion- Suzanna Danita-Walters: Why This Socialist Feminist Is for Hillary

Source: The Nation-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

What I get from this piece from The Nation is that self-described Socialist Feminist Suzanna Danuta-Walters, who said she's to the left of Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, is voting for as she put it centrist Hillary Clinton, is because she believes Hillary would win. And has enough in common with her on the issues. And of course being a Feminist she wants the next president to be a Democratic women. And to be honest I believe that is the calculation that a lot of both Far-Left Democrats like Bernie and Center-Left Democrats such as myself are making as well. Not far enough to the left, not liberal enough for me on personal freedom and civil liberty issues, too much influence from Wall Street. And in Bernie's case, she's not a Socialist and not progressive enough on economic issues.

That is really the calculation all Democrats should be making assuming Hillary is our nominee. Not our first choice in many cases unless you're truly in this to see the next president be a Democrat who is at least center-left. She's not a dead-centrist and stuck in the middle, she just has a tendency to come off that way, because she had a tendency to wait until issues to become popular before she takes a tough stand on them, but generally comes down on the liberal, or progressive side. She's not in the dead-center, but not very far to the left even on the Center-Left for many Democrats. But compare her with anyone running for president for the Republican Party, there is no contest here.

And with the current shape of the GOP, Hillary is not only the likely Democratic nominee, but likely the next President of the United States. Because the GOP has nobody who can beat her, other than maybe John Kasich. Who is stuck somewhere around five-percent in GOP polls. And for the GOP to have any real shot at the White House next year, they not only have to win Latinos and women back in huge numbers, but stop their attacks on immigrants and Muslims as well. Because of the huge turnout of new voters who will be looking forward to voting for the first female President of the United States and making history. Good luck doing that with their Far-Right.

What Hillary Clinton has going for her, is that she's a Center-Left Democrat who comes off as strong and independent-minded, who looks very strong as a leader when she speaks, who is great on the center stage and in debates and now even speaking to voters and giving speeches. You can't call her radical about anything, unlike Bernie Sanders. You can't say she's inexperienced, or hasn't been tested, especially being married to Bill Clinton (ha, ha) and her own career in Congress and as Secretary of State. Going up against a Republican nominee who might be trying to prove to the Far-Right of the party that he hates Latinos and Muslims enough. No contest! Unless the GOP wakes up and nominates John Kasich, or maybe Marco Rubio, who could appeal to Latinos and perhaps younger voters.
POP Sugar Entertainment: Hillary Clinton & Lena Dunham Discuss Feminism

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The Daily Beast: Cheat Sheet- Ann Coulter: Donald Trump’s Muslim Plan Is ‘Best Birthday Gift’

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: The Daily Beast: Cheat Sheet- Ann Coulter: Donald Trump’s Muslim Plan Is ‘Best Birthday Gift’

I don’t know who is a bigger birthday gift for bloggers and comedians, Donald Trump, or Ann Coulter. I guess The Donald would be at least physically, but that might only be because Ann Coulter has the body that only a stick-figure could want and is tall as a giraffe at the same time. Maybe they could run on a ticket for birthday gift of the year and run as a duo. Perhaps arm-wrestle to see who should run for president and who should run for vice president. I gotta admit even with her scrawny frame, with all of that masculinity that Ann carries inside, that might be enough for her to beat the 220 pound or more Donald Trump in an arm-wrestling contest.

Or better yet, The Donald and Flat Ann, could run for President and Vice President of the United States together for the Fascist Party and bring that back. As they’re working to develop their national time machine to take America back to 1955 and celebrate like its 1955 on New Years Eve and Day. They could appoint Rick Santorum as their foreign policy adviser and Mike Huckabee as their social policy adviser. Donald Rumsfeld, (an even less impressive Donald) could be their national security adviser.

A couple major things that The Donald and Flat Ann have in common is that neither one of them are politicians, because neither one of them are electable outside of the Bible Belt. And in The Donald’s case, he’s not electable anywhere outside of a Hollywood movie, or one of his own so-called reality TV shows, because he doesn’t know what he believes. Which gets to my second point about The Donald and Flat Ann, that since neither one of them are politicians they both can say whatever nonsense comes into their head at anytime.

Because they both know they’re not going to get elected to anything anyway. The Donald. wants to sell himself for his current venture which is, ‘Who Wants Donald Trump For President?’ Which will be available at your nearest TV set, or movie theater by the spring of 2017. And Flat Ann wants to sell her latest book and columns which will be available at your nearest garbage cans sometime in 2016. With pieces of three-weeks old baloney stuck in each page. With even homeless people turning down as food and reading material at the same time.

The only time I’m surprised by anything that either Donald Trump or Ann Coulter says, is when they say something intelligent. And I gotta tell you I have a hell of a memory and I can’t remember the last time either one of them ever said anything that got me thinking, ‘hum, we agree on something. They have a point there and I wish I had thought of that.’ They are both sharp businesspeople even accidentally in the sense that they know how to sell themselves. Sell their business ventures and in Flat Ann’s case her writings. Trash to be accurate that she sells that gets thrown out, or made fun, or a combination of both.

No, Ann Coulter, is not a prostitute, because lifelong prison inmates who have a better chance of seeing snow in San Diego than getting out of prison, have turned her down and have chosen men instead. What I mean by that is they sell themselves as far as what they’re personally selling. With The Donald, its his personality and reality TV career. With Flat Ann, its her books and columns. That keeps garbagemen in business forever with all the trash she writes. I personally for the life of me can’t believe why any intelligent person could even take either of them seriously, let alone believe what they say could actually be true.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

The Nation: Opinion: John Nichols- President Obama Is Right- This Unauthorized War Needs to Be Debated by Congress

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The Nation: Opinion: John Nichols- President Obama Is Right- This Unauthorized War Needs to Be Debated by Congress

I believe the only impressive point that President Obama made in his ISIS speech on Sunday night, was saying that Congress should be debating this war and passing an authorization for it. If the House and Senate held a vote tomorrow on whether or not America should be involved in the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, it would pass overwhelmingly in both chambers. With perhaps just the Progressive Caucus and few Libertarians in the House voting no and perhaps a handful of Senators voting against it as well. If that was the only question and then of course it would have to be worded right where you get clear majorities in Congress behind it.

The original Congressional authorization for the so-called War on Terror was in 2001 for Afghanistan in response to the 9-11 attacks and then they updated it to cover Iraq in 2003. Syria was never part of it, neither were outside terrorist organizations like ISIS. Congress, has to get off their asses frankly and start at least trying to earn their one-hundred and fifty-thousand-dollar a year salaries. Which might not be that much in Washington, but compared with the rest of the country they’re well-compensated, especially if you look at their compensation packages compared with the rest of the country. And the Senate and House need to start trying to earn those benefits.

Congress, is supposed to authorize and say no to wars. The President, can’t do this on their own. They need approval from Congress to go to war and need Congress to authorize the costs of the wars. And I understand with a Republican Congress not wanting to go on the record of even supporting the same weather reports and sports teams as President Obama, because of how their Tea Party would react. But public office is about governing. You run for office to get there and can play all the politics you want on the campaign, but once you’re in office you have a responsibility to govern. Even if that means working with a President from the other party and officially supporting a war that might not be popular.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

ABC: Barbara Walters Special- Elizabeth Taylor 1999 Interview

Source: The Daily Review

I think survivor or perhaps the Silent Generation’s version of the drama queen as far as someone who really has lived the life of a Hollywood character. With all the ups and downs that she’s gone through in her life and gotten through all of that and perhaps came out stronger each time. All of the failed marriages, the alcoholism, the obesity, the tragic deaths of close people in her life. The life that she’s lived looks very similar to that of Ava Garner. Another Hollywood Goddess who lived her own life and lived her life her way, there was even a song made about that.

Liz Taylor, lived a life that you would think anyway could have only had been written by a very good Hollywood screenwriter. Perhaps writing the script that made them the star. Similar to Ava Gardner, I think what made Liz Taylor such a great actress is that she in many cases lived the life of a Hollywood star. She didn’t have to play roles and parts, because those parts in many cases were very similar to how she was in real-life. She was born to so soap operas and would have had a great career there has soaps not been too small of a stage for her.

Butterfield 8, which she did with Laurence Harvey in 1960, where she plays a model whose not really working, but goes from man to man and not sure who is the real man for her and not really committed to anyone. But relies on several different people to help her get through, is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about here. I believe she was such a great actress, arguably the best ever and the best of her generation, because she was a great actress, with a keen wit and intelligence, but she played women who were very similar to who she was in real-life.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Salon: Opinion: Walker Bragman- 'More Like Ronald Reagan Than FDR: I'm a Millennial and I'll Never Vote For Hillary Clinton': Good Riddance Millennial!

Salon- Bernie- Hillary-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Salon: Opinion: Walker Bragman- 'More Like Ronald Reagan Than FDR: I'm a Millennial and I'll Never Vote For Hillary Clinton': Good Riddance Millennial!

You know to say that Hillary Clinton is more like Ronald Reagan than Franklin Roosevelt, I'm not sure if Democrats who will mostly likely overwhelmingly nominate Hillary Clinton for president, should be insulted by that, or take that as a complement. President Reagan, didn't lock up German, Italian and Japanese-Americans during World War II simply because of their ethnicity and for fear they would be loyal to their former homelands over the United States. President Reagan, doesn't serve as an inspiration for Neoconservatives today with the Patriot Act and national security over liberty. But Franklin Roosevelt does.

President Roosevelt, did say, 'we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." But he didn't practice that beautiful line himself. President Reagan, didn't try to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with friendly justices, because he thought that he was losing too many cases. President Reagan, paid reparations to Japanese-Americans, because of the Roosevelt Administration's unconstitutional internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. As much as today's so-called Progressives say they love FDR, there's a lot about him that is not even worth liking.

Today's so-called Progressives, like to point to Franklin Roosevelt as their political icon, but the fact is President Roosevelt was way to the right of them on civil liberties issues. And would be what we would call a Neoconservative today when it comes to civil liberties and national security. Meaning civil liberties wasn't a major concern to him, at least if he thought they interfered with national security. And was more than willing to bypass Americans constitutional rights in order to protect our national security. And probably not as Far-Left as today's Progressives who are really Democratic Socialists in actuality, on economic policy.

President Roosevelt, wasn't anti-wealth, anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-private enterprise. He believed in all of these things, but was a Progressive in the sense that he believed all Americans should have an opportunity to succeed in life. And not just people who are born to wealth. Today's Progressives, should be looking at Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas and other Democratic Socialists, who ran for president in the early and mid 20th Century, but came up way short. Not someone who created the National Security State and Military Industrial Complex. Which is what President Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1940s.

As far as saying that Hillary Clinton is more like Reagan than Roosevelt, is that supposed to be an insult, or a complement? I guess when it comes to economic policy for Democrats that would be an insult. Especially since President Reagan didn't have much if any role for government when it came to economic policy and helping people who are struggling. But when it comes to national security, foreign policy and civil liberties, you know again Reagan believed in those things. Not as strongly as I do and neither does Hillary, but they both have much better records when it comes to civil liberties than FDR could even dream of having.

As far as writing in Bernie Sanders for president once he overwhelmingly loses to either Hillary, or my preferred choice Martin O'Malley, good luck. Bernie will probably say no to you, because he doesn't want Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio to be the next President of the United States with a Republican Congress controlling both the House and Senate. You want to go third-party and go with the Green Party and Democratic Socialist Jill Stein, by all means. You want to create Sanders-Stein 2016 Democratic Socialist ticket for president and vice president, I suggest you consult with both Bernie and Jill first. Because Bernie probably won't be interested.

But just take all of the Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party who prefer the political correctness fascism over free speech, who believe middle class Americans are under taxed and that Americans aren't smart enough to decide what we should eat and drink and need a nanny state to make those decisions for us. While Democrats bring in Center-Left Independents who aren't Democrats, because they see us as a big government party that wants to spend most of our money for us and shut us up when we say something that is offensive, or critical about minorities. And the next president will be another Democrat in a landslide.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Eldridge Edison: U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders on The Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993

U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Eldridge Edison: U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders on The Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993

Anyone who actually interested in helping to move people out of poverty in America would be in favor of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Unless you're an Ayn Randian who says that government has no role in dealing with poverty in America. Why? Because the EITC encourages low-income and low-skilled adults to actually work and not just get, or stay on Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. Because it takes roughly twenty-million people off of the Federal income tax rolls and tell those workers that if they work, they won't have to pay Federal income taxes and instead get about two-thousand-dollars back in the paychecks every year. Which of course they'll spend, because they can't afford not to, because they have bills that have to be paid and struggling just to survive to begin with.

If you're against the EITC from either a Far-Right perspective where you believe that government has no role in dealing with poverty, or that everyone should pay income taxes even if they can't afford it, or come from a Far-Left perspective in opposition that says big government is entitled to tax all income and that government should encourage people to work, because that would just encourage independence from government, then of course you would be against the EITC. But the two most successful as well as bipartisan policies that have passed Congress and were signed by the President in the last forty-years, are the EITC and the 1996 Welfare to Work Law. Because again both policies encourage people to work. And says that being low-skilled and being low-skilled with kids, is not a good enough excuse to go to work and at least try to take care of yourself.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor- Capitalism for Growth, Government for Fairness

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

You need a healthy private enterprise capitalist economic system for any economy to do well. That has been proven for a hundred-years now. Marxist state-control of the economy simply doesn’t work. A big reason why the Soviet Union collapsed is that they ran out of money and their republics wanted a different life for themselves free from Moscow’s central planning and economic control. The People’s Republic of China, figured that out as well forty-years ago and moved to a more private enterprise economic system. And the same thing with Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba ten years ago under Marxist dictator Fidel Castro.

So the question is not whether you should have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not, but what type of private enterprise system you should have. And what is the role of your national government in the economy to make sure that as many people as possible have the tools that they need to do well in live on their own and paying taxes and not just payroll taxes so when people are struggling, you have the resources to help out the people who truly need it. Instead of having a superstate designed to take care of physically and mentally able people. Who could take care of themselves if only given the opportunity.

You don’t want government managing industries. You don’t want government doing practically nothing either. You don’t companies to be able to legally pollute the air and water, or pass those costs onto taxpayers. Or get away with not paying their workers for the work that they do. You also don’t want taxes so high that encourages people not to work and be successful at work. What you do want is as many people as possible to be as economically successful as they can be. You want to encourage people to finish and further their education.

You want to encourage people to do well at work. The larger your middle and upper classes are and the lower your low-income class is, the stronger economy you’ll have. Because the more people you’ll have that can afford to purchase the products they make. Pay their bills, have a good time like vacationing and eating out and so-forth, putting money away and the stronger economic growth that you’ll have.

The reason why I believe in limited government is because I only want government what it should do based on what its good at and what we need it to do. Government, should just be a referee, national insurance system and investor. Laying out the rules for how companies and individuals should relate to each other and the people who work for them and their consumers. But not try to run their business for them.

An insurance system for people who truly need and are out-of-work. Help them get back on their feet and get a good job, but not try to manage their lives for them. Investing in things like education, infrastructure, trade, job trading, people, by empowering people in need to get themselves on their own feet. The more people you have doing well in your economy, the stronger your economy will be, because of all the workers and customers that you’ll have who are independent, on their own and living in freedom and not off of government.
The Aspen Institute: How The Sharing Economy is Redefining The Marketplace

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Washington Free Beacon: ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos- Bernie Sanders Says He Would Raise Taxes On All Americans

Socialist Tax and Spender!
Washington Free Beacon: ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos- Bernie Sanders Says He Would Raise Taxes On All Americans

ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, with his questioning here did a very good job at getting Senator Bernie Sanders to admit that everyone’s taxes will have to go up if you want to pay for all the Senator’s new Federal programs without borrowing the money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China. Because we’re talking about trillions of new Federal spending to pay for his new programs. Medicare For All alone, would be a couple trillion a year. Because now the U.S. Government would become the sole provider for health insurance in America. We have a population now pushing three-hundred and twenty-million people and we’re only getting bigger.

And Senator Sanders can say he wants to tax the rich all he wants to pay for his programs. But if somehow we did see a hurricane in Minnesota tomorrow, in November by the way and Democrats not just win back Congress, but most of those new Democratic Senators and Representatives are at least as far to the left as Senator Sanders, the rich won’t pay most of those new taxes. Why? Because most of them can afford to live in other countries where they wouldn’t have to pay 60, 70, or 80 percent, or whatever the new top tax rate would be under a President Sanders. Plus on top of that all of their subsidies disappearing as well.

So who gets stuck paying for all of President Sanders free government programs? The people who are supposed to benefit from them. Middle class Americans for the most part who can’t afford a sharp tax attorney to can find them all sorts of tax breaks. And can’t afford any new tax hikes right now even with the payroll tax. Bernie, wouldn’t have to raise payroll taxes to guarantee Family and Medical Leave. He could get a bill passed out of Congress. an institution he’s very familiar with serving now almost twenty-five years there. That says all employers, or at least all employers with income’s of a certain amount have to give all of their employees Paid Family and Medical Leave. Of course middle class taxes would go up under a President Sanders and he’s at least smart enough to understand that.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Words of Flowers: Grace Kelly- 1963 Biography

Source: Words Of Flowers- The Amazing Grace Kelly and her children 
Source: The Daily Review

I don’t know of a another women where the name and word Grace better fits than Grace Kelley. Their parents named her perfectly and I’m not sure there’s a women who looks more like a princess than Grace Kelly. Perhaps Queen Noor of Jordan, who I believe at least is a better looking Goddess than Grace, looks more like a princess. The only word I have for Grace Kelly is more. I wish she was in Hollywood longer and did more films and perhaps worked in television where there would have been so much great work for her in either. And I wish she had lived longer, because similar to Diana Dors, (speaking of goddess’ and princess’s) they both died in their early fifties. Two Hollywood Goddess’s from the Silent Generation, both dying in their early fifties and both women by most accounts living responsible lives. And not big consumers of alcohol and other drugs.

Grace, was a great actress, with a great face, great voice, very charming, good sense of humor. Never looks more than half her age with one of the sweetest baby-faces and voices you would ever see and hear. Who was in great Alfred Hitchcock movies like To Catch a Thief and Rear Window. Where she was the lead actress in both movies where when you see her in those movies it was hard to concentrate on anyone else. Because she was so sweet and well, graceful and just grabbed your attention and made it difficult for you to think about anything else. In the chase scene in To Catch a Thief where she’s driving with Cary Grant, she looks like a teenage girl going out for a drive with her daddy. That is how sweet she always was and never did anything to suggest she wasn’t that sweet in real-life and not just fooling people with her appearance.

Grace Kelly, not the sexiest actress of all-time and not very sexy compared with a lot of other Hollywood Goddess’s and I believe, because she had a tendency to come off as a kid, because she was so adorable. But other than Elizabeth Taylor I believe Grace is the best actress of her generation. Someone who would have remained a star through the 1960s and even longer than that had she simply wanted that. But I guess it is hard to turn down the opportunity to be a European princess especially in a beautiful country like Monaco. And again she was a women who looked like a princess and had the personality to match. She was someone of many talents including that as an actress and I wish she just had done that a lot longer.
Words of Flowers: Grace Kelly- 1963 Biography

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

In These Times: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: My Vision For Democratic Socialism in America

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vernont
In These Times: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: My Vision For Democratic Socialism in America

What Senator Bernie Sanders laid out in his socialism speech is what I’ve argued that democratic socialism is. Not Marxism and economic state-ownership, but a large social insurance system better known as a welfare state to go along with the private enterprise economy. So people can get help when they fall down and for people who struggle they can get help getting by. As well as help to meet their basic economic needs. Like health care, education, health insurance, childcare, to use as examples.

Keep in mind, nothing that government does in a free society is free. Especially socialism and that all of these new government social programs like college, childcare, to use as examples, would all come with a cost. A big cost in taxes especially in new payroll taxes, but perhaps a cost in higher income taxes across the board. The idea that the bottom ten-percent income tax rate could stay that way in American social democracy, not likely. There’s only so much the wealthy are willing to pay to pay for other people’s lives. What Senator Sanders is arguing for is to bring Sweden and the Nordic social democratic economic model to America.

The difference between democratic socialism and Marxism, is that in a social democracy, the economy is in private hands. Meaning business’s and industries and people own their own property and even business’s. But again with a welfare state to insure that no one has to go without in the private enterprise system. In a Marxist system, the state meaning the central government, owns everything. The means of production in society, as well as all other property. With no guaranteed individual rights other than being taken care of by the state. But as every Marxist state that this world has ever seen, the people generally aren’t taken care, because of badly the state manages the economy. What Senator Sanders wants to create is a large welfare and regulatory state, to go with a welfare state. On top of the private enterprise system.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Universal Vision: Real Time With Bill Maher- Racism in America

Universal Vision: Real Time With Bill Maher- Racism in America

Instead of trying to take fascist unconstitutional actions like trying to ban free speech on campus, or anywhere else in America, how about we ban Red Bull, Starbucks, every other coffee-house and alcohol in America. And instead legalize pot so students can learn how to chill. Then we’ll see who really wants to go to college in America and as a result we would save a lot of money in student debt. Especially for people who perhaps the only thing they got out of their student debt was how to protest and bitch about nothing. College students, should just relax and realize they live in a society where not everyone loves them. And when they do see racist behavior, especially crimes, they should report them to the appropriate authorities. With those authorities acting appropriately.

Racism, is not the issue in America. A blind racist could see that there’s racism in America. I guess now I’ll get hate email about making fund of blind people and perhaps even blind racists. The question is what can we do and what should we do about it. And when you live in a liberal democracy where everyone is guaranteed a constitutional right to free speech, not a hell of a lot can be done as far trying to close the mouths of stupid people. We have to let them be stupid and make assholes out of themselves and laugh like hell, because of how incredibly stupid they are. While at the same time teaching kids who haven’t graduated with a degree in stupidity yet about how to treat people. Especially people you don’t know and may not look and sound like you.

The only cure for racism when it comes to speech and thought is education and commentary. If it is possible to teach a bigot how dumb they are by all means try, but if not make an example of them and show other people who have a full brain why you don’t want to be like that asshole. The only thing that political correctness and fascism in general does is piss people off. Even people who aren’t bigots, because when even stupid people lose their free speech protections, that puts everyone else’s free speech in jeopardy. So at the end of the day assholes are to be made fun of and made examples of. And the uneducated should be educated which cuts down on future stupidity.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Salon: Opinion- Sophia McClennen- Lets Listen to Bill Maher: How Bill Maher Walks a Fascinating and Tricky Line

Real Time-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I think the best way to look at Bill Maher’s politics is to look at him from a George Carlin perspective as someone who leans left and Democrat, but in his heart he’s an Independent. Whose free to critique both sides especially the fringes on both sides when it comes to issues that he cares about.

Bill Maher, will go after the Christian-Right when they proposing outlawing adultery, or homosexuality and create a national time machine that will take America back to 1955. Or economic Libertarians when they call for outlawing all social insurance programs in one hand, as they fight like hell for their corporate welfare. That in many cases keeps them in business if you look at how they mismanage their own companies. On the Left, he’ll go after so-called Progressives, that have this marijuana high utopian notion that minorities aren’t entitled to any criticism. And they should be left to a world where there’s no criticism of anything that they do or say. While the New-Left goes after the Far-Right every time they breathe on someone they care about.

What I think the New-Left in America and I call them that, because they are made up of Democratic Socialists and New-Marxists, who apparently aren’t fans of either economic or personal freedom and just wants a society where government takes care of protects everyone, especially minorities, even everyone from themselves, but what I think they don’t get about Bill Maher is that his show is called Real Time with Bill Maher for a very good reason. He tells it like it is at least from his perspective and what he knows and in many cases is right. But that when it comes to economic policy, he has a hell of a lot in common with the New-Left. If anything he’s further left on economic policy than Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders. And believes that the wealthy should pay ninety-percent in income taxes. He believes being rich and economically independent is a bad thing.

They way I describe Maher’s politics is that he’s a Socialist Liberal. Very progressive if not socialist on economic policy, but very liberal on social issues and foreign policy. He wants big government in our wallets, but out of our bedrooms and personal lives in general, just as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people. And perhaps especially he wants big government out of our mouths. Telling us what we can say and what we can’t say. Probably the strongest and sharpest opponent of the New-Left when it comes to political correctness. And believes America should defend freedom, just as long as we aren’t doing all the fighting and trying to fight for countries that won’t fight for themselves. Which is what a liberal foreign and national security policy is about.

So if you’re Far-Left when it comes to economic policy, social policy and foreign and national security policy, you’re probably only going to like Bill Maher about 1-3 of the time. And the other 2-3 you’ll be accusing him of being a hate-monger, or bigot, or even worst, the L-Word, which is Libertarian! Which would be like a Conservative calling a leftist a Socialist. So Salon, the AlterNet, TruthOut, etc, if you’re looking for someone to put down America and bash the Christian-Right, while calling Islāmic terrorism and culture Freedom of Religion and expression, even though you don’t believe in Freedom of Religion, Bill Maher is not your boy. If you want someone to defend both the welfare state when it comes to Bernie Sanders and nanny state when it comes to Mike Bloomberg, Bill Maher is not your boy. And you should just stick with people who are in your league like Michael Moore.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The Nation: Opinion- Laila Lalami: 'To Defeat ISIS, We Must Call Both Western and Muslim Leaders to Account'

Source:The Nation- Love instead of peace, is that the idea here?
Source:The New Democrat

"What happened in Paris on November 13 has happened before, in a shopping district of Beirut on November 12, in the skies over Egypt on October 31, at a cultural center in Turkey on July 20, a beach resort in Tunisia on June 26—and nearly every day in Syria for the last four years."

From The Nation

"After the attacks in Paris, some in ISIS are emboldened and have uploaded a video threatening further attacks. Specifically on Washington, D.C. We must remain vigilant and not be terrorized. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) warns in a new video that countries, including the U.S., that are taking part in Syrian airstrikes will suffer the same fate as France.

"We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day, God willing, like France's and, by God, as we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington," a man said in the video,according to Reuters.

The authenticity of the video could not be immediately verified.”*

From Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks

Source:The Young Turks- ISIS Islamist leaders
I watched Senator John McCain, whose not exactly amateur when it comes to national security and foreign policy experience and knowledge, give a speech on the Senate floor today about the Paris attack and ISIS. Because I’m a current affairs blogger who has better things to do than watch celebrity TV and mess around with my smartphone all day. And I guess it was half-hour speech and in it he said one thing that I agree with him other than the non-controversial lines that, “if America is strong and together we can defeat ISIS.”

The part in Senator McCain’s speech that I liked was calling for a no-fly zone over Syria back in 2011. He and Senator Lindsey Graham, another heavyweight on these issues, might have been the only two members of Congress in either chamber to had support that back in 2011. Not last year, or even in 2013 when President Obama called for a new war against ISIS. But failed to get the support from it in Congress.

Laila Lalami, in her column in The Nation today, (not exactly a neoconservative publication) said that Saudi Arabia is a big reason for the creation of ISIS. That is true with their Far-Right Wahabi version of Islam that encourages Sunni Muslims to treat women and non-Sunnis like trash. And they’ve spread this horrible ideology in their schools and give money to private Wahabi groups and have been an inspiration for ISIS. I’m not saying that had America as part of NATO along with Turkey and perhaps help from the Arab League, had they took part in a Syrian no-fly zone back in 2011 and that America went after Saudi Arabia through sanctions or whatever else when it came to Wahhabism, that Syria would be a peaceful stable country today. But Bashar Al-Assad, would certainly be out of power and hopefully rotting in a Syrian desert prison right now.

You don’t defeat a group like ISIS, by slapping them on their hands and saying, “you’re bad! Don’t do it again, or else!” When they punch you, you knock them out and take it to them. You go with the Colin Powell doctrine of full and and overwhelming force. America can’t do this by ourselves, but we sure as hell have a major role here to prevent ISIS from hitting Washington, or New York, like they hit Paris. We, Europe, the Arab League, Kurdistan, Iraq and Turkey, need to be over there and frankly kicking ass in the air and on the ground. Until ISIS is no longer running any part of Iraq or Syria and Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal evil regime is out of power in Syria. And Congress needs to get off their asses and stop Monday morning quarterbacking and pass a resolution in the House and Senate that gives President Obama the authority to work with Europe and the Arab League to get this done.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

TIME: Charlotte Alter- Here’s What All Successful Student Protests Have in Common

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review Plus

What separates the student protest movements of the 1960s from today, is that the 1960s protesters were protesting for freedom. Protesting for civil and equal rights for all Americans. Protesting in favor of free speech on campus and in general. Protesting against an unjust war that they hated and so they wouldn’t have to go fight in that war themselves. The so-called student protesters today are protesting in favor of political correctness over Freedom of Speech. They want a special new right for minorities. The Right Not to be Offended. No American currently has that right in the U.S. Constitution, but these New-Left protesters feel that minorities in America are entitled to it.

So you have the 1960s student protesters, the Baby Boomers the hippies, the real Liberals from this era who wanted the ability to be left alone, live their own lives and live in freedom, before the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s, that wanted to tear down the American establishment and our form of government and move to a socialist system. The 1960s hippies marching for individual freedom for all Americans and not have to fight wars they think are immoral. And you have the sons and daughters, perhaps even grandsons and granddaughters of the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s, protesting today against free speech. And create a new right for minorities that doesn’t exist for anyone else.

The hippies, were successful, because America was politically changing in the 1960s and becoming that country that we really are today. Of people who believe in the right to be left alone and be free to live our own lives and even freely express ourselves. While the New-Left, represented a fringe in the 1960s that believed capitalism was immoral and even racist, that our form of government was even undemocratic and completely wanted to change the American way of life and impose their socialist and even Marxist values on the rest of the country. And today you have the New-Left still representing a fringe that sees free speech as dangerous and that minorities deserve the right not to be offended. The 1960s protesters were successful, because in many cases they had the country with them. The New-Left protesters today don’t have that.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Miss Green Again: The Carol Burnett Show- Disaster 75

Carol Burnett & Harvey Korman-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Any guesses to what movie this is a spoof from? I’ll give you a clue, you need to be familiar with movies from the 20th Century and at the very least have heard of the 1970s decade. If that era seems like the Civil War, or old school, or whatever to you, then you’ll have no idea what this is from. And you’ll probably have no interest in this piece.

Carol Burnett, of course is playing off from Airport 1975. I at least believe is the best of the 1970s disaster movies and perhaps the best disaster movie of all-time. Where you have a mid-air collision in it and you have the head stewardess flying the plane for a few hundred miles at least and getting help from the tower in order to do that. Watching Nancy (played by the great Karen Black) fly and airplane and watching that little beautiful baby cutie fly that huge 747, was all the motivation I needed to see that movie. I saw it for the first time when I was 18 and it quickly became one of my favorite movies. This movie combines I believe the best of soap opera, with all the side stories, humor and people going through rough times, with how professionals react when they’re put in the worst possible situation possible with hundreds of lives depending on them.

Carol Burnett, not as cute as Karen Black, but who is and she’s a lot funnier and perhaps just as good an actress. And it was great to see her flying a jumbo jet as well. Especially with I don’t know, Carl Reiner (just to throw out a name) talking her through the experience. The 1970s, was a depressing can’t wait to get to the nearest ledge to jump off of Niagara Falls decade. But the movies were great and the genres and what people were interested in seeing from Hollywood was great. America, was interested in disaster movies, terrorism, cop movies, detective movies, soap operas, especially if the movie was well done with great casts and was also funny. And Airport 1975, was an example of that and perhaps the best movie from that genre in this decade.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Drew David: Ava Gardner 2000 Intimate Portrait: A Real-Life Queen of Drama

Intimate Portrait
Drew David: Ava Gardner 2000 Intimate Portrait: A Real-Life Queen of Drama

I don't know of another actress other than maybe Lana Turner, (speaking of drama queens) who lived her real-life as close to many characters she played on the big screen than Ava Gardner. She was a real-life drama queen and I don't mean that in a negative sense. But nothing was ever boring with her. Starting with her gorgeous baby-faced adorable looks. Very similar to Elizabeth Taylor and her great voice as well. Also similar to Liz Taylor. Her beautiful black hair, again Liz Taylor. And that she was this incredible real-life character with a great sense of humor and the ability to play almost anyone on the big screen. With the best and most interesting character that she ever played being the one and only Ava Gardner. Perhaps the prettiest and most interesting drama queen of all-time.

You put Ava in soap operas in the 1950s when they came out on TV and she would've been the queen of soap. Susan Luci, would've had nothing on Ava. Because Ava was almost not acting when she was playing very dramatic roles especially women with quick-witted sense of humors. She was just playing herself, this beautiful, adorable, sexy, intelligent brunette, who was also one hell of a great actress. She lived her personal life the way the played many roles in the movies. A women who always did things her way, (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) who wasn't alive, but always living life and enjoying every moment of it that she possibly could. Perhaps why she and Frank didn't work out, because he might have been too much and too much fun for him.

And the other thing that she had in common with Liz Taylor, is that they both lived life to be alive. Not simply to try to get through it like you're in prison, or serving in combat and simply trying to survive. She was free as a squirrel who lived her whole life the only way she knew how to, which was to have as much fun as she possibly could. And she paid a heavy price for that with the alcoholism and having several different male relationships that never worked out. But it was her life to live, to enjoy and make mistakes with. Not someone else's to live for her, or for her to live in someone's else's image of what kind of life she should have. Which takes a lot of guts to literally be that free in life and that I have a lot of respect for her.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

TruthDig: Kasia Anderson: Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank Gives His Take on Campaign 2016

TruthDig: Kasia Anderson: Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank Gives His Take on Campaign 2016

Campaign 2016, will be another opportunity for Americans to sober up and make a big decision by sending the escaped mental patients back home to their institutions, or retaking control of the prison and putting the administration back in charge of the prison, or whatever analogy you want to use, or stick with the status-quo. Where you have people who don’t believe in government even as much as new Speaker Paul Ryan might be an optimistic pragmatist, who don’t believe in government. Letting the Tea Party run the House of Representatives, is like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar. The alcoholic would never make any money, because he never has anything left to sell, because he always drinks everything. Or putting a serial rapist who hasn’t been convicted yet in charge of a rape counseling group. Or a sexual harassment class. It makes no sense, because you end up pointing your gun at your own two feet instead of your enemy.

I think in a normal election year with normal American voters, the Democrats should win back the House. Having said that I might as well hope for the elimination of world poverty. We don’t have a normal electorate right now and instead have a country that pissed off at everyone who is not them and who is doing better than them. Instead of looking at why government doesn’t work and why government can’t meet its basic needs and responsibilities for the country. Because you have one party who now controls both chambers of Congress and not just the House, who don’t believe in government. Who hate President Barack Obama so much, that they rather try to make him look worst than they do. Assuming that is even possible when President Obama is in the fifties and the Republican Congress is like at ten-percent. Depending on if everyone you ask in your poll is both sane and sober.

That is just the House elections. The Senate, should go Democratic just because it’s a presidential election year. Where we’ll have huge Democratic turnouts with African and Latin-Americans perhaps turning out in record numbers with new voters coming out. With so many new women and not just Caucasian women voting for Hillary Clinton. The most likely Democratic nominee for president. And then throw in that 24-34 Senate seats that will be up for reelection in 2016 will be Republican. Democrats other than Nevada, don’t have any real vulnerable members up and vulnerable open seats other than Nevada. Also a lot of those Republican seats that are up like Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, are all states that voted Democrat for president in 2008 and 2012 and voted Democrat in huge numbers. So Senate Democrats, won’t need a sane sober electorate to win back the Senate. They just need to get their own voters out and for the Democratic presidential nominee to do fairly well.

As far as the presidential election. Hillary Clinton against who? After perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire and Vermont, where does Bernie Sanders have any shot at beating Hillary? Martin O’Malley, my preferred candidate, is still in single-digits and not raising any money. And then go to the Republicans who go by the campaign slogan, “vote for us if you hate government!” In other words vote for people who don’t believe in government to govern. Unless you’re an Anarchist, why would you take that seriously. And that is before I get into Donald Trump and Ben Carson. If the Republican campaign was mostly about Marco Rubio, who should be the future of the GOP and John Kasich, who by far is the most qualified Republican presidential candidate, if not candidate period for president, I might be worried. Because not leading a non-suicidal Republican Party, Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich, could both give Hillary a long run for her money.

Predicting presidential elections twelve months in advance, is probably about as smart as going bike-riding without a seat, or with only one tire. How far you think you would get? But doing stuff that is fun is not always smart. Just ask people who get drunk every weekend, if not more often and ask them how they feel the next morning and how much work do they lose from doing that. But its fun and they feel its worth it. I think we already have a pretty good idea what the 2016 presidential election will look like. And unless the Republican Party is cleared sane between now and in the next twelve months and nominate someone like Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, they have nobody who can beat Hillary next year. Unless she starts shooting her own two feet off to see how it feels to be a Republican right now. 2016, leans Democratic at the presidential level and for Senate. And we’ll see what if anything changes within the next year.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Atheism-is-Unstoppable: Woody Allen, The Atheist

Atheism-is-Unstoppable: Woody Allen, The Atheist

I don't have a problem with actual Liberals being religious and actually if I had to guess just at looking at the Democratic Party, Liberals tend to be religious. But as a Liberal myself, I have a problem with being both religious, or an Atheist, because I simply don't know if there's a God, or not. Liberalism, is based of reason and evidence, not faith. And if you take the position that God doesn't exist, but you can't prove it, because no one actually knows, if we were all real about this, you have faith even as an Atheist that God doesn't exist.

I just don't work that way as a non-religious person who generally doesn't go by faith. I trust people, sure, because they've given me reason to trust them. But again that is based on actual evidence. Not having some grand vision and beliefs that there is some higher power out there watching over everyone. There isn't some Liberal God (at least that I know of) giving Liberals all of their powers and ideas. We developed them based on knowledge and evidence from what works. Education, freedom, responsibility and let people make their own decisions.

And because I don't have faith in whether there's a God or not, I'm neutral on the subject. I'm an Agnostic and I take strong positions on issues where there's clear evidence one way or the other. Which is how I have my liberal principles that are built around individuality, choice and responsibility. Because that is where the evidence suggests that I should be. Put out all of the facts and information about all of the issues on the table. (Just don't eat them) Educate everyone as best as possible, but at the end of the day let people make their own personal and economic decisions and hold them responsible for them.

I don't hold these values, because I have faith that they will work, but because there's clear evidence that they will work and have worked. Religion, is the opposite of that at least as it relates to God. "We can't see God personally, but we know he's there looking after us, because we have in faith in them." That doesn't mean anything to me and I'm not impressed by that. But others of course can make their own decisions. Which is what I believe in as a Liberal. It is one thing to have strong moral religious values about how you look at life. It is another to say, "this is what is right, because God told us that." How would you know that, did you ask him? Did you see him write that down somewhere? How do you know that God is a man? I don't have to answer these questions, because I don't believe in God, because I don't know if one, or many exist, or not.

Friday, November 6, 2015

B.V. Dahlen: Bob Newhart on Being Politically Correct Comedy

Good Job Bob!
B.V. Dahlen: Bob Newhart on Being Politically Correct Comedy

I like Bob Newhart’s line about gays and straights implying at least that we’re both funny and we just make fun of each other. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that gay men especially, because lesbians tend not to be as sensitive, (ha ha) could make all the butch masculine straight-men jokes all they want and straight men would probably just laugh at them. Because we know ourselves and know so many straight men and how we tend to act . But if you make a feminine gay man joke and make fun of a queen, you’re automatically viewed as a bigot and homophobe by the Illiberal-Left Political Correctness Police. Even if you believe that gays, men and women, should have the same rights and responsibilities under law as straights, male or female. And that you’re even friends with gay men and are friendly with lesbians.

I mean that is the whole point, right. When you make fun of someone or groups of people and that is all you’re doing and you’re not throwing slurs and bigoted insults and that sort of thing, not that bigots don’t have a right to their sense of humor as well, that is all you’re doing. You’re jabbing at characteristics and flaws of people and groups. When you make a gay man joke, or do an impression, you’re not saying that all gay men are feminine and sound like women and walk like runway models and the whole deal. You’re just making fun of queens who are gay men with feminine characteristics. Like being oversensitive and not crazy about people knowing who they are.

If comedians can’t make of people, they might as well become car insurance salesman. (And saleswomen to politically correct) Because that is what life would be like for a comedian who isn’t allowed to make fun of people. Either through their writing, or performances. One dreary day after another where you’re literally counting how many times someone slammed the door in your face. After you told someone about the great car insurance deal you could give them on their Ford Escort. Except that you’re not allowed to make fun of it, because you’ll be accused of being bigoted towards door slammers. Comedy and humor, is exactly that. Not exactly a true story, but someone making fun of something, or someone who has done something. Not to be taken seriously and by the way, great comedians generally have a self-deprecating sense of humor. So how about everyone else as well.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

LA Progressive: Opinion- Lawrence S. Wittner- Democratic Socialism: More Democratic Socialists Than You Might Think

Democratic Socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

To add to Lawrence Wittner’s list of American Democratic Socialists. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, that includes Senator Bernie Sanders and sixty or so Representatives in the House. The Congressional Black Caucus, eighty or more members in the House. A lot of the CBC are also part of the CPC. It is not that Democratic Socialists are not common in America and that democratic socialism doesn’t have a real movement. It’s that Democratic Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics that way. They prefer to be called Progressives, or what pisses me off as a Liberal, they go by Liberal. Not that I hate democratic socialism, but as a Liberal, I believe there is a real limit to what government can do for people. And I would like to see more public services for moving people off of public assistance, instead of leaving them dependent on them.

Go to the entire MSNBC talk lineup and tell me who over there if anyone, other than Chris Matthews, disagrees with Bernie Sanders on anything? If anything, MSNBC is to the left of Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Especially as it relates to issues of free speech, middle class tax hikes. And are to the right of them at least in Ed Schultz’s case when it comes to marijuana legalization. Big Ed, is opposed to marijuana legalization. Who takes more of a progressive big government nanny state position on marijuana. But how about RT America and not just Thom Hartmann. How about Al-Jazeera. Again networks that are pretty Far-Left and tend to take a democratic socialist view on the issues. Who if anything are even further left than Senator Sanders.

But if cable talk is not enough for you, how about Salon, The Nation, The AlterNet, TruthOut, TruthDig, LA Progressive, Gar Alperovitz, Paul Krugman, who at the very least leans in a democratic socialist direction. As Bill Maher has said several times, it is not that there aren’t Socialists in America, because of course there are, but there’s an unwilling for Socialists to come out of the closet. (So to speak) Because for fear as being labeled as Marxists, or Un-American, losing employment opportunities and so-forth and so on. But of course democratic socialism has had a lot and I would argue proud history in America, going back to at least Eugene Debs and they’ve even had at least one President of the United States in Franklin Roosevelt. But what they’ve lacked is the courage to proud of their political ideology that they self-describe themselves for what they actually are. Democratic Socialists and they should defend who they are, not run way from it.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Salon: Opinion: Aaron R. Hanlon: "They're The Politically Correct: Ben Carson and Bill O'Reilly Are The Real Intolerant Speech Police": We Might Do it, But So Do They?

Salon: Opinion: Aaron R. Hanlon: "They're The Politically Correct: Ben Carson and Bill O'Reilly Are The Real Intolerant Speech Police": We Might Do it, But So Do They?

To point out about political correctness policies by Ben Carson who apparently wants to ban language on campus that he sees as Un-American, just points out the fact that political correctness fascism, (and that’s exactly what it is) is bipartisan. But no way does it defend the Far-Left from trying to ban criticism of Muslims and Islam in general. It just makes the sophomoric argument, “that we might do it. But so do they. We might be bad, but they suck worse.” Not exactly a crowd pleaser and inspirational argument that brings people to your side.

At best you might get people to decide on choosing the lesser of two evils. The problem with that is that you’re still choosing evil. Just a lesser evil, but still evil. “You want me to break your back, or do you want permanent brain damage?” Okay, you don’t like that. How about a choice between going blind, or going death? All right fine. How about I break your arm, or your leg, but I won’t break both?” Because those are the kinds of choices you have when picking between two evils. Fascism on the Right, or fascism on the Left. How about neither!

Political correctness fascism from either the Right or Left, still fascism. And try to say one is worst than the other, how about we not have that argument. Instead of arguing who was a worst dictator, Joe Stalin, or Adolph Hitler, how about we have an argument about who is the better president, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan. And just because one side does it when it comes to political correctness, doesn’t excuse the other side when they do it. It just means that we had anti-free speech radicals on both sides. Who’ll fight like hell for their right to free speech. As they try to crush the other side’s rights.

“Dad, I cheated on that test, but so did five other students.” That wouldn’t impress my father and imagine most fathers and probably most mothers as well. All that does it show you that cheating was a problem on that test. And when you point out examples of political correctness on the other side, it just points out that political correctness is a bipartisan problem. But it doesn’t excuse either side. Political correctness, is illiberal fascism, whether it comes from the Left or Right. Actually, all fascism is illiberal. Meaning not liberal. Which is why this blog constantly points out the importance of free speech. And all believers of free speech Right and Left, should always fight against fascism.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

TruthDig: Chris Hedges Interviewing Rachel Moran: "Prostitution- Being Raped For a Living": Consensual Sex Can't be Rape

Rachel Moran & Chris Hedges
TruthDig: Chris Hedges Interviewing Rachel Moran: "Prostitution- Being Raped For a Living": Consensual Sex Can't be Rape

You want to know why America is the world champion is mass-incarceration  and leads the world in prison inmates every year? I'll tell you anyway. Because we arrest people to doing consensual activities where no one is actually hurt. Narcotics, gambling, adult pornography, prostitution, are all illegal at least somewhere in America. And statists on the both the Left and Right, aren't looking to fix this problem, but actually make our nanny state even bigger. We're supposed to be a constitutional federal republic and liberal democracy. We are on paper, but for that to be real Americans have to have a certain degree of personal freedom and that even involves the freedom to be involved in personal activities that comes with a certain amount of personal risk. Especially when we're talking about consensual acts.

As far as Chris Hedges referring to prostitutes as slaves and prostitution as slavery. A slave is a person who is the legal property of another. Slavery, is the state of being the legal slave of someone else. Rape, is being forced to give non-consensual sex to another. Where you have no choice in  the matter and someone is sexually forcing them self on you and you aren't able to stop it. Crimes, should be activities where innocent people are hurt by predators. Not to protect people from themselves by sending them to a horrible place that is actually worse for them than the activity that they were involved in that got them sent to jail and prison in the first place. Prostitution, is consensual sex. What makes it different from recreational sex is that there is a payment involved between two parties. Who agreed to be involved with each other in this activity.

So when you call prostitutes slaves and say they're being raped for selling sex and you call prostitution slavery, you're simply dead wrong. And I'm not going to editorialize and ponder whether you're ignorant, or dishonest, but you're wrong. Prostitution, is a bad dangerous business where people do get hurt. But so is tobacco, so is alcohol, so is gambling, so is football, so is auto racing, hopefully you get the picture by now. How big of a nanny state do you want in a liberal democracy and free society? How many people do you want in prison for being involved in dangerous activities where they never hurt anybody? Wouldn't you rather spend that money instead of things that improves people's lives and serves the public? Education, infrastructure, economic development, assisting people in poverty to actually move out of poverty, etc? We should tax and regulate dangerous consensual activities. Not make criminals out of people who simply engage in them.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

The Gypsy: Woody Allen Rare Standup From 1965

The Gypsy: Woody Allen Rare Standup From 1965

If I was robbed four times in a month as Woody Allen claimed, not that I was robbed, but that he was, hum? Gee I don’t know, how about moving! Just throwing a thought out there. Actually, after the second time I was robbed, I think I would have moved. Especially if I was in his situation, or was doing better. Nuevo York, a muy loco ciudad! New York, a very crazy city, for any English speakers who happen to see this. They go from way too much crime and a city of eight-million people in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, that can’t defend itself, even though it’s the economic center of the world, (where all those high tax dollars go) to a city in the 1990s where you could be arrested for even viewing porn. Perhaps even jaywalking, hailing for a cab with your middle finger.

If a city is too dangerous to go outside, it’s too dangerous to live there. I know, another strike of commonsense there. I guess people could work from home and order all of their food in. Have the dentist and barber come over, etc. But if that is what people are doing, then the people making all the deliveries are risking their lives by going outside everyday and going to other people’s homes in New York. And don’t forget, even if they get out of their homes and business’s safely, they might risk being kidnapped, or robbed at the place where they’re making their delivery. I’ve never understood how big wealthy cities haven’t been able to defend themselves. And gee I don’t know, invest a good deal of their resources into their law enforcement so the city can defend itself. But I guess that just comes from not being a New Yorker.

Friday, October 30, 2015

Salon: Steve Almond & Diane Roberts- "I'm a Feminist With a Football Obsession": Still Hope For The New-Left

Tallahassee's Doak Campbell Stadium-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I think its clear why so-called feminists and the broader New-Left in America hate American football. It masculine, its tough, it’s a sport for men, designed for TV, like in the real-world there are winners and losers. They probably even see the sport as sexist, because its such a manly straight-man’s game. (If you will) And yet there’s a quality about American football that the New-Left and Socialists tend to be fans of. Football is about as collectivist of a sport as you can imagine. Maybe only soccer is more collectivist, because football is all about teamwork.

To run the ball, the center has to correctly snap the ball to the quarterback. The quarterback has to correctly take the ball from center and then correctly hand the ball off to the tailback, or fullback and perhaps fake the handoff to the fullback and give it to the tailback. The runner, has to take the ball and hit the correct hole and run hard. The offensive line, has to create the hole for the runner. All of these things are basic fundamental procedures. But if you watch American football on a regular basis, these basic steps are screwed up on a regular basis. The QB is not ready for the snap, the center snaps it too soon, or doesn’t snap it at all, because he thinks the snap count is higher. The QB hands off the ball to a runner who is not there. The runner drops the handoff. An offensive lineman, false starts, etc.

Football, is not boxing. You can’t play well if you’re teammates around do also don’t their jobs. Every player in the came is dependent on everyone else to do their job. You can have the greatest QB and receivers in the league. But if your offensive line can’t pass protect, your receivers will never see the ball. At least downfield, because your QB will usually be on the ground before he can get rid of the ball. And that is just the offense, which I’m probably more familiar with as a fan. But good luck to your linebackers making tackles for loss and at the line of scrimmage, if your defensive line is consistently getting blocked downfield, with you left to clean up the mess. You want a pass rush from your DL, your corners and safeties need to cover the receivers for more than a couple of seconds so your DL can get up the field and hit the quarterback.

You want could pass coverage on defense, you need a consistent pass rush so your secondary is not left to cover good speedy receivers 5-6 seconds per pass play. They need to get to the quarterback in 2-3. Don’t have to sack him every play, but get the QB to throw the ball quicker than he wants to. Hit him as he’s throwing the ball, or right after it. Make him try to scramble. And for a pass rusher to be effective like a defensive end, defensive tackle rush linebacker, they need the pass rushers on the other side to do their jobs as well. So they’re not always doubled and triple-teamed. You’re not going to find a more collectivist and perhaps even socialist sport than American football. I bet Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is a football fan. The question is, does he follow the New York Giants, or New England Patriots, because he’s lived in both places. But you would have to ask Senator Sanders that.

American football, is violent, its rugged, its gritty, comes with a lot of risks and people do get hurt from it and comes with a lot of costs. But it’s about as American of an activity as we have. And a reason why Americans love America and being American. But there’s a big reason the Super Bowl is always the highest rated sporting event in the world every year. Because millions of people outside of America watch the game and even come here to see it. People from collectivist social democracies, who tend to claim that they don’t like a lot of what America stands for. And don’t like a lot of the qualities and characteristics about American football. And yet they come to our country, emigrate to our country watch our sports, including football. Because its such an exciting game where you can’t be successful at it without collectivism and teamwork.