Salon Magazine: Simon Maloy: Bernie Sanders: How The Socialist Brings Out Socialists True Colors

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

“Hey, Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and so am I! I just didn’t have the balls to admit it when he did. And I didn’t have the balls to admit it before he decided to run for president. Even though Bernie has been in Congress for now twenty-four years, including the last eight in the Senate.”

That is the main effect that a Bernie Sanders presidential campaign will have on the 2016 presidential race. People who up until now called themselves Progressives, or even worst, at least from my perspective Liberals, even though they represent the Far-Left in America, will now call themselves Socialists, or Democratic Socialists. Because, that is what their leader calls himself and they share his politics.

Actually, even though Senator Sanders is the only self-described Democratic Socialist in the U.S. Congress and I emphasize self-described. He’s fairly moderate and mainstream to people who will be supporting him. He might even be moderate and mainstream to a lot of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which he’s a member of, with most of the CPC members being in the House. I bet most of the CPC members in the House couldn’t get elected statewide. To use as an example, they need gerrymandered districts to keep getting reelected. Senator Sanders, represents the Socialist Republic of Vermont, as its called, but we’re still talking about an entire state. Not just part of one.

But, I wouldn’t support a Democratic Socialist for president, unless it was Bernie Sanders, or Mike Huckabee, or Rick Santorum. I could see my wallet and money running for the hills without me. Looking for new ownership, if they heard I was voting for Bernie Sanders for president. But I’m glad he’s running for president. Because it will give Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party the opportunity to admit to who they are and own the socialist label and stop running from it. And say, “Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist and so am I. I’ve always been one and just didn’t have the balls to admit to it. Because of the negative stereotypes that comes with socialism in America.”

Keith Hughes: What is a Socialist?

Source:Keith Hughes-

Source:The New Democrat

I’m only interested in two types of Socialists when it comes to this post, at least. The Democratic Socialist, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, to use as an example. And the Socialist Liberal, take Professor Noam Chomsky, to use as an example. Someone who is as liberal as me on social issues. That the individual is exactly that when it comes to their own personal affairs. And doesn’t believe we need big government to tell us how to live. But where the Socialist Liberal separates from me has to do with economic policy and foreign affairs. That the Socialist Liberal believes the role of government, especially the central government, is to take care of people. The Liberal, just wants everyone to have the freedom to take care of themselves. That government has the responsibility to see that everyone can do that. But not manage their economic affairs for them.

And that is basically where the Democratic Socialist and Socialist Liberal are on economic policy. A central government big enough to make sure that everyone is taken care of. That all of our basic necessities are met and that the central government should provide these services for us. With a private enterprise system to finance all of these government services for us. Financed through high taxes and big regulatory state to see that the private sector is meeting the needs of the people. And not just to maximize profits. Which is what democratic socialism and social democracy are. Not run the economy, but to see that everyone’s economic needs are met.
Source:Keith Hughs

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico: 'I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice'

Source:Away Point- Valerie Tarico writes for the AlterNet.

Source:The New Democrat

"I believe that abortion care is a positive social good. I suspect that a lot of other people secretly believe the same thing. And I think it’s time we said so.

As an aside, I’m also pro-choice. Choice is about who gets to make the decision. The question of whether and when we bring a new life into the world is, to my mind, one of the most important decisions a person can make. It is too big a decision for us to make for each other, and especially for perfect strangers.

But independent of who owns the decision, I’m pro on the procedure, and I’ve decided that it’s time, for once and for all, to count it out on my 10 fingers." 

From the AlterNet 

"On the evening of January 22, 2014, just after the March for Life, Live Action President Lila Rose debated Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL, on CNN's Crossfire. 

When presented with a "gotcha" clip of herself on the Glenn Beck Program, Rose affirmed her conviction that children conceived through rape do not deserve the death penalty for their fathers' crimes.  Further, Rose said on Crossfire, "[a]bortion doesn't un-rape a woman.  An abortion just adds more violence on top of that first violence that she endured." 

Source:Live Action- in The Crossfire. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

From Live Action

Reading this piece by Valerie Tarico, reminded me of a conversation that I was in about three years ago on Facebook (of all places) that was about abortion. And after I tell you about this conversation, you’ll know where my position is on abortion and choice when it comes to abortion. We were talking about abortion, obviously. But what made this discussion interesting was that we were both in favor of keeping and having abortion be legal. That the woman should make the call when it comes to her own pregnancies.But where we differ has to do with public financing of abortion. 

I’m against public funding of abortions because I don’t believe taxpayers should be forced to finance someone else’s abortion. Especially if they view that as murder. Which I don’t, but only to save the life and health of the mother, or if she was raped. 

The person I was talking to on Facebook about abortion, said that he supports public financing of abortion, but for fiscally conservative reasons. So taxpayers don’t have to support someone else’s kids that the parent or parents can’t support. He supports public funding of abortion to prevent low-income women from having additional babies while they’re still poor. I told this person that they sounded pro-abortion to me. And that I’m pro-choice, which is very different. The person said that they were pro-abortion.

As far as Valerie Tarico’s piece in the AlterNet. She compared abortion with knee surgery. She said she’s pro-abortion like she’s pro-knee surgery or supports chemotherapy or cataract surgery. Even though these procedures are completely different. 

To state the obvious and perhaps Valerie Tarico needs this stated: you don’t end pregnancies and future babies and children being born when you get a knee surgery, or get your eyes fixed. That’s what you do with an abortion. A woman ends her pregnancy and as a result she’ll never have a baby from that pregnancy as a result. Unless the woman was raped, she didn’t have to become pregnant in the first place. She chose for that to happen, along with the father together. And she can choose to end her pregnancy as well.

Pro-choice whatever the issue and freedom of choice just doesn’t cover abortion. So if you say you’re pro-choice on abortion and perhaps homosexuality, but you support big government and the state when it comes to marijuana and other drugs, perhaps even alcohol and tobacco and now sugar and salt, like with some paternalistic nanny statist leftists today and add gambling and pornography and certain types of speech as well, your belief in freedom of choice is very limited really to just one or two issues. While you would have a big government there to stop people from making all sorts of other personal choices that you disapprove of. Even if they aren’t hurting anyone with what they are doing.

See, that’s the beauty of liberalism, liberty, liberation, liberalization, freedom in general. (Deal with it right-wingers and leftists) The ability for individuals to make their own decisions even if they’re making a decision that is potentially harmful, especially if they don’t know what they’re doing and others don’t approve of. But then also have to deal with the consequences of their choices including the financing of them, so we can’t pass the cost of our own decisions on to others, especially if those decisions are bad. But also so we aren’t financially endorsing bad decision-making in this country. And that is the difference from being pro-choice on multiple issues and publicly endorsing the decision-making of others.

Salon Magazine: Katie McDonough: 'Bernie Sanders, Feminist: Making America More Like Scandinavia'

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) the only self-described Socialist in Congress. But not the only Socialist in Congress.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m glad Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist member of Congress, but not the only Socialist in Congress, which I’ll get to later, is running for President in 2016. Not because I as a center-left New Democrat Liberal would vote for him, at least in the Democratic primary. Because I wouldn’t, I’m voting for Martin O’Malley who better represents my center-left politics. But because now Socialists will have a major party presidential candidate who calls them self a Socialist. And center-left Liberals will no longer have to hear someone like Dennis Kucinich whose just as far-left as Senator Sanders calling them self a Liberal, when they are Socialists.

Far-Leftists in America, who prefer to be called Progressives, even though they are way to the left of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, on foreign policy and national security at least, but economic policy as well, or Liberals, even though they are much further to the left of Jack Kennedy on both economic and foreign policy, as well as national security, will now be able to come out in favor of Bernie Sanders and his socialism. Because they believe in the same things. Higher taxes on everyone, small military, bigger more centralized Federal Government, the U.S. Government becoming responsible for the economic and personal welfare for all Americans. And providing most if not all of our basic necessities in life. While having a large enough private sector to have an economy strong enough to finance all of these Federal social services.

Social democratic publications like The Nation, AlterNet, Salon, TruthOut, TruthDig, The New New Republic and others and social democratic groups like The Daily Kos, Media Matters, MoveOn and many others, the Green Party, Democratic Socialists of America, will now not only have their presidential candidate, but a presidential candidate who quite frankly has the balls to self-describe his politics and ideology for what they are. Which is democratic socialist. Senator Sanders, like all Democratic Socialists, believes the role of government is to see that everyone is taken care. That everyone’s basic needs are met. Especially for people who aren’t able to take care of themselves, to take care of them. Even if that means less individual freedom for everyone else.

So you’ll have at least one Liberal in Martin O’Malley and perhaps Hillary Clinton, depending on how she runs for President, saying that what America needs is more opportunity. And for freedom for everyone to be able to succeed in America. And that government has a responsibility to see that everyone can get themselves the tools to be able to live in freedom. Built around education, infrastructure, economic development for struggling communities. Assistance for people on Welfare to be able to get themselves a good job and live freely. With the lone Democratic Socialist running for President in the Democratic Party, representing the Far-Left flank saying that what the country really needs is a government big enough to take care of everyone. Which should make the Democratic primaries interesting.

MASH: 'Goodbye, Farewell & Amen (1983)'

Source:Dylan Hollingsworth- Left to right: Alan Alda & Mike Farrell as Captain's Benjamin Pierce and B.J. Hunnicutt.

Source:The New Democrat

"MASH Goodbye-Last Day At The 4077th" 

From Dylan Hollingsworth

"Last Day of filming" 

Source:SASSA- Henry Morgan as Colonial Sherman Potter.

From SASSA

As the people who created and written the last episode of MASH said, this just wasn’t a comedy. And as funny as the rest of its episodes. But MASH was never a pure comedy to begin with. It was a show about the Korean War and America’s involvement in it. And handled a lot of life and death serious issues, but did it with a lighter touch. 

As character Captain Trapper McEntire put it (played by Wayne Rogers) who was joking around in surgery one day as he was operating on someone and his nurse said: “Do you always have joke around while you’re performing surgery?” The Captain said: “Yes, because it his what keeps me sane around all of this insanity and death that is this war”. That is what MASH was about: Humans trying to do their best under horrible, traumatic, conditions.

Humor, is a form of communication. And a way a lot of people, funny people, or people with good sense of humors at least, use to express how they’re feeling. And it can come out at anytime and be used appropriately and inappropriately. 

MASH, didn’t use humor to make the Korean War look any lighter and less serious than it was. But to show how horrible and crazy of a situation that a lot of America’s Army personal had to work under as part of their service in that war. 

I think I would go crazy if I had to work under those conditions with a complete straight face all the time. I think I would have a better shot at keeping my sanity in solitary confinement for ten straight years, then to try to save lives while people are being killed around me and innocent people are being killed.

This last episode was about the last days of the Korean War. A peace agreement between America and the Communist North was being worked out. And the personal at this MASH unit were waiting for the word and being told that they can go home. And how people who’ve spent a year or two-years or perhaps the whole damn war together, how they would say goodbye to each other. And get ahold of each other when they’re back in the states. 

This episode wasn’t a pure comedy, but again MASH never was. But what it was, was a realistic look at how Army personal enlisted and draftees perform at an Army medical hospital during the middle of a war. Trying to save as many lives as they possibly can while so many people around them are being killed in battle. And they did a hell of a job.

NBC Sports: NFL 1980-AFC Final-Oakland Raiders @ San Diego Chargers: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports-

Source:The New Democrat

With all due respect to the Air Coryell Chargers, they weren’t a complete all around great football team. They had a great offensive minded head coach in Don Coryell. They had a Hall of Fame quarterback in Dan Fouts and a great passing game as a result. With great receivers, Kellen Winslow, Charlie Joyner, John Jefferson and perhaps a few others. And they had a pretty good running game with Chuck Muncie. This was a team in the late 1970s, through 1987, which was Dan Fouts last season, that scored a lot of points and gained a lot of yards. But gave up almost as many points and yards as they gained. Great teams don’t do that. If they have a great offense, they at least have a good defense to go with it. So they aren’t winning and losing a lot of shootouts. But winning a lot of blowouts. The San Francisco 49ers of the 1980s are a great example of that.

The 1980 Raiders, were a great team, at least in the second half of the season and through the playoffs, including the Super Bowl. Because they could score a lot of points and gain a lot of yards. Both passing and running, but their defense shut teams down. They shut good offenses down, like the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl 15. And this first quarter is a great example of that. The Raiders scored 21 points, the Chargers scored a touchdown. But the difference being the Raiders were able to shut down the Chargers in that quarter, even though the Chargers did score a touchdown. And the Chargers, give up three touchdowns in that quarter.

The Raiders, simply matched up very well with the Chargers that season. The Chargers had the great passing game, but the Raiders had a great pass rush and great secondary. They were big and quick on defense and caused a lot problems for the Chargers offense. And the Raiders had a balanced offense and with the Chargers being prone to giving up a lot of yards both from the pass and run, meant the Raiders could move the ball and score and get the ball back. Which created separation on the scoreboard. Super Bowl teams, aren’t great on one side of the ball and weak on the other. Even if their strength is on one side of the ball, they’re good enough on the other side to complement their strengths. Which gives them a good team. That was the difference between the Raiders and Chargers in this game.