Salon Magazine: Steve Almond & Diane Roberts: 'I'm a Feminist With a Football Obsession'

Source:Salon Magazine- Tallahassee's Doak Campbell Stadium.

Source: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.

Robert Greenstein: Budget Deal, Though Imperfect, Represents Significant Accomplishment & Merits Support

Source:Center on Budget & Policy Priorities- Speaker John Boehner: "I'm no longer dead man walking".

Source:The New Democrat

Looks like the parents for the House Republicans finally came home from their long extended vacation and took control over their house and children. But if I had kids like the House Republicans, especially the Tea Party Caucus, I might leave them at home and not come back myself. The adults are finally in the room and in charge in the House Republican Caucus. Speaker John Boehner, has nothing else to lose at this point and decided to make a deal with President Obama and the Senate. And avoid another political suicidal government shutdown.

Which is too bad for a lot of bloggers and pundits, and comedians including myself, who were looking forward to covering government shutdown rallies in Washington in November. With Teddy Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, the House Tea Party Caucus, etc, waving signs saying, “so more government until Obama surrenders!” Or perhaps, “goes back to Africa!” But what’s good for the country is not always what’s good is not what’s good for comedians. Comedians, make a living making fun of bad situations and people being stupid, including stupid people. But the problem with stupidity and idiots is that they tend to have victims.

At risk of sounding serious and intelligent here, (perhaps not that big of a risk) the American economy just when it looks like it’s about to take off again especially with holiday season approaching right after Halloween, needs certainty. They need to know that the leaders is Washington can tie their shoes without tying them together accidentally and tripping as soon as they stand up. Every time we go through a potential default, or a government shutdown the markets and Wall Street take a beating. And it tends to cost us economic growth and hurt the job picture as well as well as the deficit going up as a result. With the government shutdown being avoided, because House Republicans finally learned how to tie their own two shoes, the economy can breathe easy and things can look normal again.

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris & Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

Source:The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin & Sam Harris.

Source:The Daily Review 

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem are leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.

Franken Splean: Omnibus- Hunter S. Thompson's: Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (1978)

Source:Franken Splean- Hunter Thompson, talking to BBC's Omnibus in 1978.

Source:The Daily Review

"BBC program Omnibus features Nigel Finch's 50-minute 1978 documentary of Hunter S. Thompson and Ralph Steadman, with cameos by John Dean, Brian Doyle & Bill Murray, Ray Romano, & probably other known entities I missed."

From Franken Splean

If I was growing up, or an adult in the 1960s and 1970s, I might consider if I had access to, going through that decade on one big alcohol and illegal narcotics high. The problem with that is I probably wouldn't have survived it and lived to blog about those experiences today. Which might have only been a problem for myself. But the 1970s especially, was a very depressing decade. As I mentioned last week about 1979, without Hollywood, America would have been a country of Fins. A very depressed country all in search of a tall bridge to jump off hoping we wouldn't hit water as we jumped off. The problem with that is that there would have been lines of millions of Americans, not waiting for gas, but to all jump off the same bridge. Even escaping reality has its limits to it like taking the trip to escape reality and what it does to your body.

I think making a film, or book, (how about both and devote your whole life to the project) about George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, (speaking of marijuana highs) would have been entertaining and depressing enough. We didn't need Dennis Kucinich, a former U.S. Representative and two-time presidential candidate who lost his House seat to another Democrat, because we had George McGovern. Whose 1972 presidential campaign made it appear that he wasn't running for President of the United States. But Planet Utopia, where there's no poverty, no discrimination, no hate and no anything else that good people tend to see as bad. And what also made Senator McGovern's campaign strange, was that I don't think the man even drank. Let alone smoked marijuana, or any other illegal narcotics. He was just out there, I mean out there as a sober man. Here's a guy who lost a presidential election to a criminal. You can't even beat a criminal in a presidential election, you're pretty pathetic.

I think covering Jimmy Carter would have been interesting enough. Here's a guy who was also a politician and yet he also seemed like a human being as well. Who didn't try to convince people he was perfect, or cover up obvious mistakes and took actual responsibility for himself and people who worked for him. Speaking of Planet Utopia, imagine a country where politicians actually seemed like real people and not robots, or puppets. Where you have someone standing behind the politician telling them what to say when a reporter has the balls to ask the politician a real question that puts the politician on the spot. I'm not here blaming politicians, because they get elected and reelected and reelected and reelected, until they die, or people sober up and decide to vote them out, by voters who are us and everyday people.  But Jimmy Carter, actually seemed like a real American, just a hell of a lot smarter.

Sometimes I wish I was born 20-25 years later and not born during the middle of one of the recession's from the 1970s. Because then I would have gotten to grow up, or have been part of the civil rights movement and perhaps even the hippie movement. I think it would have been great to live during 1968, just to see if I could have survived that year. But then someone slaps me in the face and I wake up and think to myself, "what are you fucking crazy!" Coming up during that time period would have been hell I think. Sure! It would have been fun, especially if I didn't get drafted to Vietnam and didn't have a way to get to Canada. But a lot of that time period would have been so depressing for me. I mean, I got through 1979, 2001, 2009-10. I think that is enough trauma for one person who hasn't turned 40 yet. (Knock on wood) But its a great time to write and blog about.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Interview With Senator Bernie Sanders

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher talking to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The Daily Review

Every time I hear someone interview Senator Bernie Sanders and someone asks him what does he mean by socialist and socialism, I end up feeling like I’m one of his campaign spokesman. Because he never fully answers that question and I end up explaining what he means by socialist and socialism just based on positions he takes in his campaign and his speeches. Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders. Marxists, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao, Joe Stalin and people like that. A Democratic Socialist, just wants to tax most of your money away from you and use government to take care of you. A Marxist, won’t ever let you see your own money. Because in a Marxist state you don’t own anything and you’ll probably be poor anyway, unless you have a sweet gig with the central government. And then they might use some of the state revenue to see to it that you don’t have to starve, or something.

Any politician who tells you that they have free government programs for you, ask them if they know of any great ski resorts in San Diego and hows the snow there. You might want to ask them if they also have a great deal on a 1978 Ford Pinto, or do they have any New Hampshire palm trees that they want to sell. All these new government programs that Bernie is talking about all come with a cost. What’s the clue there? They’re government programs! Anyone who pays taxes in America knows that government is not free. And you could raise taxes on the wealthy by fifty-percent if you want to. (Some people are screaming why not!) And watch people in Canada and Mexico get rich because of all the new money that is now being invested in those counties in order to avoid 60-70% tax rates in capitalist America.

So of course the middle class are going to have to pay for their free college, free childcare, free health insurance, free health care, free food, free housing, whatever else the Senator wants to give away for free. Because those things won’t be free for anyone whose receiving them. He’ll have to increase payroll taxes and income taxes on perhaps everybody to pay for them. Even when government pays for services through borrowing and asking for a check from the King of Saudi Arabia, or the Prime Minister of Japan, taxpayers have to pay for that as well. In the form of interest on the national debt and higher interest rates. You want government services, you have to pay for them unless you’re too poor to pay taxes. Which most of the country isn’t . If Senator Sanders is going to become President Sanders, he’s going to have to convince millions of Americans, especially Americans who aren’t Democratic Socialists that they should want to pay for these new services.

The weakness of the Sanders Campaign, is that they’re promising a lot of Christmas gifts (even in October) without telling people who they will be charged for their own gifts. Imagine receiving a Christmas gift from your brother and he tells you, “Joe, I’m glad you enjoy your new book, but that’s going to be twenty bucks. I don’t have the money to pay for it myself.” I would probably hit my brother with the book, or throw the book at him. (Pun intended) So what Bernie should be doing is, “saying look at these other countries and the services that they provide for their people. And how they pay for them. That is what I want to do here.” While also explaining to people that those services are paid for through payroll taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. I don’t agree with that approach, but at least he would be straight with the hundreds of millions of American taxpayers that he wants to represent as their president.

Bill Ayers: Socialism, Seriously!

Source:Bill Ayers.

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Bill Ayers (for once perhaps. Check Los Angeles for snow right now.) that Bernie Sanders should run as who is. Which is as a Socialist, a Democratic Socialist which is common in Europe, especially in Scandinavia. For a couple of reasons and not because I’m a Socialist myself, because I’m not. But for one politicians should run as who they are. That should going without saying, but if you’re familiar with American politics you that it doesn’t. But also Senator Sanders has a real audience out there. A democratic socialist base that doesn’t have the balls to call themselves what they really are, which are Democratic Socialists. Who are actually to the left of Bernie on some really key issues.

But two, America has been in decline economically really since 2000-01 and I’m not blaming anyone here, just the facts. Especially with the middle class with falling wages, a falling workforce, cost of living going up and I could go on an on. But that would just depress you and make you feel you’re back in 1979, or something. So Bernie has an audience and a limited amount of time to talk to these struggling Americans and tell them why big government socialism is good for them. Until they find out that all of these free government programs that the Senator is offering are not free at all. That Americans will probably have to pay more in payroll taxes in order to finance them. The, “I’m just going to put the costs of these programs on the backs of business’s idea.” Is going to fly as well as a plane without wings, or an engine. Even with middle class Americans who own, or run a business them self.

So of course Bernie Sanders should run as a Socialist just like a horse should run as a horse. Because that is who he is and Americans are tired of politicians trying to convince them that they are anything other than who they are. And a real person instead of a political robot would be a real fresh change of pace for the average American voter. And again Bernie even has an audience of dedicated voters who are, well dedicated to him. And think he’s, “like totally awesome, or whatever. And not only feel the Bern, but may now have sunburn as a result. But just because a politician runs as himself, which I’ll admit is real fresh in American politics, is no guarantee of getting a personal key to the White House.

Retro Viewing: I Love 1979

Source:Retro Viewing-

Source:The Daily Review

What do I remember about 1979? Not much. First year of nursery school and unfortunately I do remember that. I still have a class photo from June, 1979 that proves I was there. Living in Bethesda, Maryland, a very cold winter and a very hot summer. Consequence of living right between Florida and Maine you get the extremes when it comes to weather. And if you remember 1979 you know that the economy sucked like 1976 0-14 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and that cost of energy and cost of living in general was very high in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I do remember Jimmy Carter as President, I remember meeting my paternal grandparents for the very first time. Which was 1978, or 79.

I do remember the designer denim jeans revolution that started in the late 1970s. (Thank God for miracles!) Which actually started in 1977-78, but I guess became real big in 1979. And seeing all of these beautiful sexy women with great legs and butts walking around in those jeans. And generally wearing them with boots and a leather, or suede jacket. Which made watching sitcoms in the early and mid 1980s and in 79, a lot of fun for guys, including myself. Because those designer jeans for women were all over the 1980s on TV. Today those jeans would probably be called skinny jeans, but didn’t have the same low-rise and were a bit higher. Seeing Catherine Bach on Dukes of Hazzard in those jeans and cowgirl boots, was all the motivation I needed to watch that show and see those legs.

The Dukes of Hazzard, comes out in 1979. And I mean it had every single country rural Anglo-Saxon stereotype about that culture that you could possibly find in real-life all on one show. Dirt roads, men and women with not one, but two first names. I guess they were selfish when God was giving out first names, or their parents couldn’t make of their mind what to call them. So they called them Billy Joe, or Betty Sue, because they couldn’t decide on Billy, or Joe, or Betty, or Sue. So their parents named them Billy Joe and Betty Sue and gave them both names. The Dukes, was actually a very good show. But some of the writing even though a lot of it was very funny, made you feel like you were always at a Southern Baptist Convention, or went back in time to 1955. You didn’t even hear the words hell, or damn. Like, “what the hell?” Or, “I don’t give a damn!” Or just, damn! It was always, “what the heck?” Or, “dang it!? The show had a real Leave it to Beaver vibe to it that was pretty cheesy.

I would talk about the politics and current affairs of 1979, but the problem with that is I don’t want be accused of sending anyone into a depression and being committed to a mental institution. A very depressing year economically especially, but crazy weather, high crime, big problems oversees. Wait, I guess it is too late for that now, but if I went further it would just get worst. Thank God for Hollywood and the American entertainment industry in general, because without them I think would have been a country of Fins. And you would see long lines of people not waiting for gas, but to get to the nearest bridge to jump off from. All of those great movies, like The Electric Horseman and The China Syndrome, two great Jane Fonda movies, WKRP, becoming a hit in 1978-79, The Dukes of Hazzard, Threes Company, (speaking of designer jeans revolution) there was were plenty of great innocent distractions for people to forget about (if that was humanly possible) how bad the State of the Union was in 1979 was. So in that sense it was a great year.

Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'Political Ideology- Government & Politics'

Source:Crash Course- talking about political ideology.

"So today Craig is going to look at political ideology in America. We're going to focus on liberals and conservatives and talk about the influencers of both of these viewpoints. Now, it's important to remember that political ideologies don't always perfectly correspond with political parties, and this correspondence becomes less and less likely over time. So, sure we can say that Democrats tend to be liberal and Republicans tend to be conservative, but we're not going to be talking about political parties in this episode. It's also important to note, that there are going to be a lot of generalizations here, as most peoples' ideologies fall on a spectrum, but we're going to try our best *crosses fingers* to summarize the most commonly held viewpoints for each of these positions as they are used pretty frequently in discussions of American politics."

Source:Crash Course 

This is what liberalism really is: "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. It was developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America.[1][2][3]

Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on classical economics, especially the economic ideas as espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] progress,[6] and utilitarianism." 

From Wikipedia 

This is what conservatism really is: "Conservatism in the United States is a political and social philosophy which characteristically prioritizes American traditions, republicanism, classical liberalism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to the states, referred to more simply as limited government and states' rights. Conservative and Christian media organizations along with American conservative figures are influential, and American conservatism is one of the majority political ideologies within the Republican Party.[1][2][3] On social issues, American conservatism typically supports Christian values,[4] moral absolutism,[5] traditional family values,[6] American exceptionalism,[7] and individualism,[8] while opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.[9] On economic issues it is generally pro-capitalism[10] and pro-business while opposing trade unions. On national issues it often advocates a strong national defense, gun rights, free trade,[11] and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by communism[12] and moral relativism.[13] Conservatives are substantially more likely than moderates and liberals to distrust science, particularly medical science, climate science, and evolution, and to believe in Creationism."  

From Wikipedia

This is what progressivism really is: "Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe.[2]

The early-20th century concept of progressivism emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization and the Second Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century. Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality; minimally regulated monopolistic corporations; and the intense and often violent conflict between laborers and economic elites, arguing that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]

The meaning of progressivism has varied over time and differs depending on perspective. Early-20th century progressivism included proponents of eugenics and the temperance movement, both of which were promoted in the name of public health and as initiatives toward that goal.[4][5][6][7][8] In modern politics, progressivism is generally considered part of the left-liberal tradition.[9][10][11][12][13] In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions." 

From Wikipedia

This is where I disagree with Craig Benzine: I'm not interested in what classical liberalism is, versus modern liberalism or conservatism is. I'm just interested in what liberalism and what I would at least call constitutional conservatism, for people who think that conservatism is about religious fundamentalism and fighting some nationalistic cultural war with everyone who doesn't share the cultural and religious values of people who are now called Christian Nationalists, who a couple years ago were called Christian-Conservatives. 

Liberalism and conservatism in their real (or classical, if you prefer) are both based on what's called classical liberalism, or what some Center-Right parties in Europe, like in Germany, call liberal conservatism. 

But in America Liberals are supposed to be antiestablishment, revolutionary, hippies. who want to transform America into some type of socialist state, who see freedom as dangerous and selfish. 

And in America Conservatives are supposed to be Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, fundamentalist, rednecks, who are anti-women and minority and who believe Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men should be running the country, with everyone else being servants. 

But in the rest of the developed world, Liberals and Conservatives are Center-Right. Not Far-Left and Far-Right, as they look in America. 

The Empire Files: Abby Martin- America's Unofficial Religion: The War on an Idea

Source:The Empire Files-

Source:The New Democrat 

Again, it depends on are you talking about democratic socialism, which is a very mainstream political philosophy in most of the developed world and gaining strength in America, or are you talking about Marxism. Which is complete state-control of the economy and society as general. Where the central state tells people what they can and can't do. Where they can work, where they can live and so-forth. What the right-wing in America has been successful at really since the 1930s is point most Socialists as Marxists, even most Socialists tend to be democratic and even Democratic. Where the Democratic Party has had a long history going back to the 1930s, or longer of having at least an unofficial wing of Democratic Socialists in the party who prefer to be called Progressives.

Democratic socialism, is not anti-capitalist and anti-private enterprise. A Democratic Socialist State if anything will use capitalism and private enterprise to fund their welfare state. To see that everyone has social insurance that they can turn to when they need it, but also to provide the basic services that Democratic Socialists don't trust the private sector to provide. Education, health care, health insurance, retirement, childcare, to use as examples. While the private sector would be left with most of the rest of the economy, short of national security, foreign policy, law enforcement, the judiciary, etc. In a social democracy, you tend to have big centralized government's, if not a unitarian state, with most of the governmental power being left with the national capital. But where the people would be free to live their own lives with basic individual rights. Including not having to live in poverty.

When I think of socialism, I think of Europe, especially Scandinavia and Britain and to a certain extent Canada. These are all countries that are all energy independent by the way. At least Canada, Britain and Scandinavia, so they can afford to be very socialist with their government's and economies. And when I think of highly statist and authoritarian third-world countries, I think of Marxists and Marxism. North Korea and Syria, great examples of that. And then you have highly developing and growing countries that use to be completely Marxist states both politically and economically that now have hybrid systems. Where they have private enterprise economies, but Marxist political systems. China, obviously, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Cuba would be another one. But there now two socialist factions in the world. The democratic faction being the largest and most successful.
Source:The Empire Files

Video Detective: The Seduction Of Joe Tynan (1979) Starring Alan Alda & Meryl Streep

Source:The Video Detective- Meryl Streep & Alan Alda.

Source:The Daily Review

The Seduction of Joe Tynan is one of the best political movies I’ve ever seen and it reminds me a little bit of the Ted Kennedy-Jimmy Carter 1979-80 Democratic race for president, which I’ll get into later. Alan Alda plays Senator Joe Tynan from New York, who has solid Progressive Democratic credentials. Who is in love with his job and wants to move up and be a national player in the party if not President of the United States.

What separates him from Senator Ted Kennedy is that Senator Tynan, actually wants to be President. Ted Kennedy ran for president in the 1980, because he didn’t like where the country was going with the bad economy and everything else, didn’t think President Carter was progressive enough, but more importantly he felt some obligation to the progressive wing to run for president and put another Kennedy in the White House.

Joe Tynan, loves the president, loves campaigning, loves politics. I would say loves his kids back in New York as well, just not enough to make them a major priority as far as attending their major events. And I would say likes his wife a lot and perhaps loves her and is attracted to her, but doesn’t have much respect for her and sees her as bit of lightweight, at least as far as the people he deals with in Washington. And I believe this comes out pretty clearly in the movie as far as how Tynan talks about his wife whose played by the adorable and funny Barbara Harris.

What makes Tynan a strong potential presidential candidate is that the President a Democrat, has a U.S. Supreme Court nominee up. Who is a bit of a right-winger, at least on civil rights issues and supported forced segregation in the past, who comes from Arkansas. And that puts Senator Tynan in a tough position of having to consider taking on the leader of his party.

Joe Tynan, doesn’t want to take on the President and his Democratic Leadership in the Senate, but he’s not going to support right-wing Supreme Court nominee who supports forced segregation either. Especially since he’s looking at running for president himself. And is approached by civil rights and labor lawyers in the party who want him to vote against Supreme Court nominee. And is approached by Karen Traynor. (played by Meryl Streep)

Who is one of the Democratic activists trying to bring Tynan to their side and oppose Edward Anderson (played by Maurice Copeland) who is the Supreme Court nominee. She gets Tynan real evidence that he’s against civil rights with video of a speech that he gave in the 1960s and that’s how Senator Tynan comes out against Anderson. Which pisses off his close friend Senator Birney (played by Melvyn Douglas) who is a close friend of Anderson and a big supporter of him.

What you have in Joe Tynan is a workaholic who has become a career politician whose always focused on politics and always looking for the next big move in his career and when he’s not doing that and takes any free time, he does it with people other than his wife and family. Starts an affair with Karen Traynor, becomes a national player and hero in the Democratic Party, decides to run for president without even talking to his wife and kids.

Who starts off the movie having basically everything he wants and has everything going for him as a young influential U.S. Senator who can move legislation. But sees an opening to furthering his political career and jumps on that and in the process almost loses everything that he has. I think this is a very good movie about an ambitious workaholic career politician who is never completely happy and satisfied. And is always looking for more, even if it means losing everything that he already has.

AlterNet: Adam Johnson: 'Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher- Still Baffled Why So Many Leftists Think They're Bigots'

Source:AlterNet- Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher: two men that the Far-Left hates.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Bill Maher and his good friend, Richard Dawkins, sat down on his show Real Time Friday night for the fifth time in almost eight seasons. Their discussion, per usual, was an agreeable, tedious mix of self-victimization and indignation about why so many on the left – specifically the Twitter left – think their obsession with “radical Islam” makes them bigots.” 

From AlterNet

You couldn’t count how many times you’ll see and rightfully so how many times the AlterNet and Salon in particular, will how some piece about the Christian-Right and how radical they are and show this bigotry, or that bigotry from them. They both everyday have some negative piece about the Christian-Right and this blog posts a lot negative pieces about the Christian-Right as well. That is not why Richard Dawkins (can I call him Dick) and Bill Maher are annoyed, or surprised by the New-Left in America. People that author/blogger Sam Harris calls regressive leftists. It’s when something radical and horrible is done by non-Christians in America especially right-wing Muslims who believe women should be treated like second-class citizens that the New-Left will either ignore, or defend that gets to Dawkins and Maher.

Atheism and liberalism and they’re not the same thing, is not about going after Christianity and only defending speech that critiques the Christian-Right and the broader right-wing in America. Liberalism is not about defending speech against Christians while trying to censor speech against Muslims. It’s about defending speech regardless of who it comes from and what the speaker says. Short of libeling people and inciting violence. Which is why the New-Left aren’t Liberals, but what I at least call New Marxists, because they don’t understand that. And have this real fascist element that says they’re going to defend their right to free speech to the hill, as they try to shut down speech and speakers they disagree with. The Real Liberals in this debate are the defenders of free speech regardless of who is speaking. Which are Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, because they’re defending free speech.

I’ve made this point several times before, but you can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. And you’re not much of an Atheist if you only concentrate on one religion and in this case that religion being Christianity and the Southern Anglo-Saxon right-wing form of it. If you have a problem with Christian Conservatives who say that women’s place is in the home and that gays should be in a mental institution, or someplace, great! I’m with you, but how about Muslim countries that don’t allow women to even drive, or vote, show their faces in public even. Do you not have a problem with that and just view as part of their culture? Is so like Richard Dawkins said, the hell with their culture! Because that is not a culture that is worth defending. Not talking about ignoring the problems with the radical Christian-Right. Just saying that they aren’t the only source of radical religion in the world. 

Timothy Taylor: 'Rethinking Parameters of the US Welfare State'

Source:The New Democrat- in America it's called the safety net, because it isn't universal.

Source:The New Democrat 

"My guess is that a lot of US economists would agree with at least two of these statements. Irwin Garfinkel and Timothy Smeeding challenge all three in their essay, "Welfare State Myths and Measurement," which appears in Capitalism and Society (volume 10, issue 1). They write: "Very reasonable changes in measurement reveal that all three beliefs are untrue."

While one can certainly quarrel in various ways with the "reasonable changes" they propose, the mental exercise involved in doing so is a nice chance to take a big-picture look at the US "welfare state" in a variety of contexts. When Garfinkel and Smeeding refer to the "welfare state," they are not talking about the extent of income redistribution. Instead, they are talking more broadly about the extent to which the government takes on the provision of a range of social benefits including retirement income, health care, and education spending.

So what is the argument that the US welfare state is not "unusually small"? Their answer comes in three parts. First, the usual pattern in the world economy is that countries with higher per capita income devote a higher percentage of GDP to social welfare spending. Here's a graph with 162 countries. The high-income countries, like the US, are the solid dots. From this image, their similarities look a lot larger than their differences." 

From Timothy Taylor

I have no problems with the American welfare state being smaller than Europe's when it comes to a percentage of gross national product, or in pure dollars. Especially when our benefits at least to low-income Americans are actually higher. 

America is not a social democracy anyway and we don't expect government to take care of us by in-large. As a Liberal Democrat I prefer to the term and the system of the safety net and looking at social insurance exactly as that. Which is social insurance, which is assistance that people collect from, but only when in need. When they're unemployed, have kids before they are ready to take care of them, are undereducated and need to get additional skills, can't afford health insurance on their own, are disabled, don't have a large enough retirement, etc.

For America to have the strongest economy possible with the lowest Welfare roles and people in poverty as possible, then as many people as possible need to be encouraged to do well in America. Finish their education, further their education, do well at work and move up, start a business, do well in business and that is where public assistance and government in general can help. To encourage people to do well and empower people at the bottom to move up. 

Short-term cash assistance and other Welfare benefits are tools to empowering individuals to create their own freedom, but they're not the final solution. You also have to help people receiving Welfare get on their feet by helping them get a good job. That comes through things like childcare if they're single with kids, so they can go to school, or back to school and finish their education so they can get themselves a good job.

If you try to move to a Swedish welfare state in America and try to make the Federal Government the sole provider of economic benefits in the country and allow people to collect a middle class income from not working, you'll see a lot of Americans especially low-skilled workers quit their jobs so they can get more money not working than working. You'll see unemployment go up as a result and with that so will the debt and deficit with fewer workers trying to pay for the Welfare of more unemployed workers. 

What we should do instead is first make work pay and that means with a much higher Federal minimum wage, so minimum wage workers are making more than people on Welfare who aren't working. And the other way to make work pay is with more workers having good skills so they can get themselves good jobs and no longer need public assistance at all to support themselves.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Richard Dawkins- Regressive Leftists

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher talking Champion of Free Speech Richard Dawkins.

Source:The Daily Review

I believe Sam Harris’s term regressive leftists is perfect. I mean if you call yourself a Liberal, but you don’t believe in free speech, just speech that you agree with that some collective has decided is appropriate speech, in other words collective speech, you’re not progressive and not a Liberal. But you’re regressive and perhaps collectivist, or statist would be a more appropriate political label for you. Being a Liberal whose against free speech would be like being a Conservative whose against free enterprise. Well, if you’re against free enterprise, you would be a Marxist, which is a hell of a lot different from being a Conservative. Or being a Catholic who doesn’t believe in God. A quarterback who doesn’t believe in the passing game. Well then what the hell are you doing as a quarterback?

The New-Left in America, which is what we are really talking about here when it comes to regressive leftists, has this far out on Mars one month-long of nothing but marijuana type of trip that Muslims and other minorities aren’t subjected to criticism in America. Even though they live in America where we have a Constitution with the first amendment to it being our First Amendment (surprise, surprise) that guarantees our Freedom of Speech. That can’t be taken away from us, because some political correctness tight ass who apparently has nothing better to do with their time than to protect all minorities from criticism, disagrees with what’s being said. If you don’t believe in free speech whether it’s about Muslims, Christians, or anyone else, America might not be the country for you.

LA Progressive: W.J. Rorabaugh- 'Hippies Won The Culture War'

Source:LA Progressive- 1960s Hippies and American freedom fighters.

Source:The Daily Review

“As blue jeans, beards, body adornments, natural foods, legal marijuana, gay marriage, and single parenthood have gained acceptance in mainstream American society in recent years, it is now clear that the hippies won the culture wars that were launched nearly fifty years ago. It was in the mid-1960s that one of America’s oddest social movements, the hippies, suddenly appeared.”

From LA Progressive 

“The New Culture Forum’s brand new publication “The Long March Through The Institutions: How the Left Won the Culture War” may be downloaded free of charge from our website:The New Culture Forum." 

Source:New Culture Forum- talking about Liberals won the Cultural War.

From The New Culture Forum 

The one thing That I like about the 1960s culturally other than the music, the movies and Jim Morrison, were the Hippies.

And as much as todays so-called Progressives claim to love the Hippies and respect them, the Hippies represent the opposite of what today’s so-called Progressive represent.

Hippies, Liberals were true, because they were anti-establishment and pro-individualism. Today’s so-called Progressives, are anti-individualism and pro-big government to the point that they want government to check what people eat, drink and even what we can say to each other with their so-called political correctness movement.

Today’s so-called Progressives are not anti-establishment: to the contrary, they support the biggest establishment in the world: its called the U.S. Government and think it’s too small.

Hippies back in the mid 1960s (let’s say) at least were true Liberals, because they were individualists. They got the memo, or bothered to look at the calendar and figured out that it was no longer 1959 and that the 1950s was finally over. They were born either post-World War II, or during that war and did not remember any of it and decided that they did not have to live their lives of their parents and grandparents.

Hippies knew the 1940s and 1950s was not so swell after all. That mom did not have to stay home and raise the kids, while dad came home every night Between 6-7 and said: “Honey, I’m home! What’s for dinner? I’m starved. Gee, what a day. ” (Or something like that from Leave it to Beaver) Thank God that was before my time. Hippies / Liberals, we’re tired of black and white TV, or sitting around in the living room listening to the radio and were looking for a different lifestyle.

There’s a discussion among historians about when the Counter Culture actually began. Some people say 1965 with the start of the anti-war movement. I point to the 1963 March on Washington as not just one of the most important times and best times in American history, but where you literally had a million people from all over the country from all sorts of races, ethnicities, cultures, lifestyles, who were anti-establishment and were all looking for a better and different America.

If there was one point in history that I wish I was old enough to have been there and experienced it would be the 1963 March on Washington. The dawning of a new America where you had all sorts of different Americans all together at the same place having a good time together and enjoying each other with all sorts of great entertainment groups all together.

These Americans were looking for their own place in America and the freedom to be individuals. And not feel they need to work at their father’s factory, or his company, or get married and stay home and raise kids.

If you were a women back then while your husband went to work and earned a living for his wife and kids. Gays came out of the closet in the thousands in the 1960s. And according to the Christian-Right, America has-been going to hell ever since. As they’ve forgotten one of their own commandments: “Love your neighbor as yourself own.” In other words: treat others as you would treat yourself. Show respect to the other people as you want to be respected. These values are mainstream today, but fifty years ago America was going through, well a Cultural Revolution.

Romantic couples having pre-marital sex, living together before they were married. Perhaps better known as domestic partnerships, unmarried couples raising their kids together, homosexuality, marijuana, women working and managing business’s, men who cooked and spent a lot of time with their kids, marijuana, I mean all of these things are mainstream today. (More examples of why the Christian-Right believes America is going to hell)

But these cultural changes were started back in 1963 and then a mid-1960s by the people who were literally trying to change America if not the world. Not the New-Left from the late 1960s that literally wanted a different form of government for the United States and a completely different economic system and force democratic socialism if not communism on the country. The Hippies, wanted to create a new culture in America and new way of life.

The reason why the Hippies and Liberals won the Culture War has nothing to do with new arguments, or these different ways of debating issues. It has to do with the children and grandchildren of the Hippies are now grown up and experienced their parents and grandparents attitudes when it comes to things like tolerance and multiculturalism and integration and have decided that there’s nothing wrong with people living differently as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they’re doing.

They know and are friends of people from other races, ethnicities, cultures, religions and even sexualities and know that they’re good people too. So why put them down, or look down upon them simply for being different from how they Are and how they were born. It took 1-2 generations of people for Liberals to win the Culture War, but we did and America is not going back to the 1950s.

Alison Martino: James Dean Mysteries & Scandals

Source:Alison Martino- Rebel Without a Cause.

Source:The Daily Review

I guess I sort of see James Dean as the male version of Jayne Mansfield. (No, I'm not trying to be insulting) As a very talented entertainer, but someone who lacked personal discipline and self-confidence. I believe another good comparison to Jim Dean would be Jim Morrison. Again, talented entertainer who got as most out of their young lives as they could until they died. The Lizard King, was an alcoholic and probably addicted to illegal drugs as well and Dean was more of an adrenaline junky I guess who was always moving fast and couldn't slow down. A Rebel Without a Cause, a famous movie. but it could be the biography of Jimmy Dean. He was way ahead of time culturally and when it came to style. Was probably born ten years too early as far as the lifestyle that he lived.

I'm not an expert on James Dean, but the information I've seen on him is that he's a pop culture superstar. People love him, because he was cool. I mean lets face it, he died at 24 and had just three film credits under his belt. Not exactly a deep resume to go on and to judge his life by. People like Dean because he was cool, he was real, he was honest, he played himself in his movies, he seemed like he wasn't acting, but being a real person instead. In many ways reminds me of the great actress Kim Novak who had the ability to literally become the person that she was playing. She also had some luck there, because a lot of the roles she had were very similar to who she was in real-life. Jim Dean is a lot like that, but of course without as deep of a resume. So there's a lot to like about Dean and easy to see why so many people still love him.

The North Star: M. Harlan Hoke- Regime Change: Ditch The Green Party for Socialist Campaigns

Source:Green Party USA-

Source:The New Democrat 

I started blogging about this four years ago when Occupy Wall Street came out and argued that how about the so-called Progressives in America like the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party, combined with the Green Party and the Democratic Socialist Party, all came together and formed one Democratic Socialist Party. The Green Party is already the first, or second largest third-party in America. Competing right now with the Libertarian Party. (For that coveted prize) You take the Bernie Sanders coalition in and outside of the Democratic Party, the Progressive Caucus in Congress and the Jill Stein supporters in the Green Party and might have a party big enough to at least get in the presidential debates. Get on most of the ballots of most of the states in the country.

I believe right now the reason why we don't have more lets say New-Left, (to be nice) or Far-Left (to be real) members of Congress in either the House, or Senate at the state and local levels in office, is because they are so spread out. You have 4-5 at least social democratic parties in America who aren't Marxist and they tend to believe in the same things and yet they end up running against each other in different campaigns. As well trying to run a credible campaign against the Democrat and Republican that they have to beat to win that office. Instead of having all of these Social Democrats run against each other in the general election, run against each other in Democratic Socialist, or Social Democratic primary instead. And have one person with one larger party behind them to take on the Democrat and Republicans.

Democratic socialism, is at its highest peak in popularity really since at least the New Deal era and the 1940s. Why not take advantage of that which is what I would be asking my fellow Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, if I was one of them and not a Liberal instead. How about one Bernie Sanders, or Jill Stein running for president instead of having two people who agree on most of the issues running against each other. And the same thing with Congressional races and state government races and everything else. That way you combine all your resources from a large group of small contributors and social democratic business people. To take on the Democrat and the Republican instead of essentially running against yourself while trying to beat the Democrat and Republican and perhaps a Libertarian who emerges, all at the same time.
Source:ENAA