Salon Magazine: Timothy Denevi- Hunter S. Thompson in Chicago, 1968: 'The Battle For The Democratic Party's Soul'

Source: Salon Magazine- Hunter Thompson at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. 

Source:The New Democrat 

If 1967 was the summer of love, then 1968 was the summer of discontentment, revolution, upheaval, whatever other big words that you prefer to voice a national unhappiness with the country and how things were going. It was the summer where once again millions of Baby Boomers were coming of age and pissed off at society, but especially the Vietnam War and feeling the need not just to speak out against the war, but to make their feelings known and to demand real change or face real consequences. The people would face those consequences being the government at three levels, local state and federal.

If you were a Baby Boomer in 1968, ( an American born in the 1940s and 50s ) life for you was pretty swell ( to use a word from the 1950s ) before you deiced to become a rebel and take on the man and the establishment that was created to give you a life where you could live freely and not have to worry about crime, poverty, being able to get a good education including college. Especially if you were of Anglo-Saxon background, ( people of English ethnicity ) just as long as toed the party line ( so to speak ) and weren't a disrupter. You weren't a woman who had some wild idea that you were going to become a lawyer. Or an African-American who had the nerve to enter a quality high school or go to college.

I have mixed feelings about the 1960s especially the late 1960s as someone who wasn't born until about ten years after the summer of 1968 where the only protests and the closest things I got to see to rioting in highs school, were students complaining about the low quality of food at lunch or students getting into fights at the nearby McDonald's because someone believed someone took one of their fries. I love the individualism and the personal freedom of that decade as a Liberal. This feeling that being an American was about being yourself and not having to follow in your parents footsteps, especially your father's just because that's what they decided to do with their lives.

But on the other side I hate the violence of that decade especially 1968. The rioting, the high crime rates, law enforcement going to far in how they responded to the young protesters. Young Boomers, who were given all the opportunities in the world to make great lives for themselves and instead of feeling grateful that instead of growing up in some authoritarian state where the government decides what kind of lives everyone in the country is going to have, they grew up in America where they had that freedom to make those decisions for themselves and instead of feeling grateful, they become political terrorists in many cases. Deciding to rob banks as a political statement because they claimed to hate our capitalist economic system. Far-Left socialist groups like The Weather Underground and others.

I get the opposition to the Vietnam War and if was a young man back then I would've hated that war and just what I've read, seen, and heard about it I hate that war myself. And I get this feeling that it's time for the Democratic Party to change and not just oppose the Vietnam War outright but create a new politics by abandoning the right-wing Dixiecrats and moving the Democratic Party in a more leftist direction. Socialist to be more accurate, with groups like Students For a Democratic Society supporting people like Senator George McGovern and others.

But that's what liberal democracy is for. You don't like the direction that the country is going in, you're more than free to speak out and campaign against it, and even offer an alternative vision for where you believe the country should go. But when you don't win and get your way, the answer is to not turn to violence to try to force your views and policies which is what The Weather Underground and other Socialist groups did back then. But instead take your losses and regroup and get ready for the next elections.

Source: E.P. James MacAdams: Hunter S. Thompson on Richard Nixon - Hunter Thompson's eyes on 1968 

Salon Magazine: Andrew O'Hehrir- Interviewing Rob Reiner: On Why Neither Party Works Today

Source:Salon Magazine- Rob Reiner, President of the Donald Trump Hater Club. 

Source:The New Democrat

I disagree with Rob Reiner on one thing in this video that Donald Trump wasn't vetted at all. I would argue that he wasn't even vetted properly. We know all about how dangerous, undisciplined, unqualified, bigoted, lacked character, lacked the most basic personal credentials that no Republican pre-Trump would give any other Republican or Democrat a pass on as far as being their presidential candidate, during the Republican primaries and he still won.

Donald Trump, labeled Mexicans as rapists when he announced for President in June, 2015.

Donald Trump claimed that John McCain, wasn't a war hero because he got captured in Vietnam.

Donald Trump's sexist attacks on then Fox News's Megyn Kelly during the first Republican presidential debate was just a couple months after his attacks on Mexicans.

Donald Trump, came out for a Muslim ban in December 2015.

The Trump University stories and how he screwed people that went to that money pit of a so-called university started breaking in early 2016.

In early spring 2016 Trump tells his supporters at one of his reality shows, I mean campaign rallies to beat the hell out of people who protest against him and he'll pay their legal fees.

Donald Trump's attacks on a gold star military family that lost their son during the Iraq War and implying that the soldier's mother didn't speak out because they don't allow that in the Muslim faith.

The Access Hollywood tape in October 2016.

The three debates where Hillary Clinton clearly looked and sounded more ready to be President than Donald Trump.

We had a tone of information and more importantly real facts and not alternative facts ( to quote White House Counsel Kellyanne Conway )  that was public for why Donald Trump wasn't just not qualified, not intellectually prepared to be President, lacked the character, the temperament, to be President, but represented a real danger to our country and government, well before he became President of the United States and the man still won. The real question is not whether Donald Trump was vetted or not, because of course he was with all the media attention that each of these stories about him got, but the real question is why Donald Trump, not just became President of the United States, but how does a man with his background, lack of qualifications, intelligence, and character, win the Republican nomination for President in the first place and put the country through this.

To go to the point that Rob Reiner made about the two-party system not working and that we need a strong Democratic Party and Republican Party, that's how Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination in the first place, because we have a weak two-party system that's about destroying the other party and not advancing an agenda that can draw popular support among American voters that's positive and shows voters who don't belong to either party why they should give Democrats or Republicans enough power to govern the country.

If we had just one party that was considered responsible enough to govern and offered that positive agenda, that party would not only have complete control of Congress, but with enough political support to actually govern. Republicans, have one, but not the other right now. A better scenario would be two strong and popular political parties that actually competed against each other with both having popular agendas leaving Americans to think I like both parties, so I'm going to let them govern together. With one party in the White House and other party having control of at least one chamber of Congress.

I would argue that Donald Trump, first won the GOP nomination because he wasn't just anti-establishment, but he's anti-Conservative. He's not a Conservative, never has been and has only being a Republican officially since 2011 or so and has always been an Independent in actuality as far as how he looks at politics and has never fitted in well with either party. We essentially have an Independent in the White House right now. The Republican Party is no longer a conservative party. They're a reactionary in the moment party that pretty much only makes decisions based on what they believe will help them politically at the given moment. At least at their leadership level and that fits Donald Trump's empty all the bullets in the gun first, figure out what all that means later approach to politics. Where everything is about now and spontaneous and thinking, intelligence, preparation, homework, is for losers.

Donald Trump, didn't first win the GOP nomination ( which was impressive enough ) because he was a Goldwater Conservative Republican who was going to turn the Federal Government back to what Conservative-Libertarians believe is the 10th Amendment role of the Federal Government which is basically no safety net or regulatory state and let the states deal with those issues themselves. Most Trump voters not only like the Federal safety net, but depend on it for their daily survival. We're talking about lower income blue-collar, older voters, who are also veterans, for the most part.

Donald Trump, won the GOP nomination because he against what the Republican Party traditionally believes in including things like character and knowledge, temperament. Who brought bigotry out in the open and made to seem OK to a lot of Republicans and even Independents. Had Trump run as a traditional Conservative Republican, he not only doesn't become President, but he never wins the GOP nomination, because there were 17 other Republicans who were more qualified and better suited to being President of the United States, including several Republicans who are young enough to be is sons.

Source: MSNBC: Hardball With Chris Matthews- Rob Reiner: On Donald Trump - Rob Reiner, on President Donald Trump's SCOTUS choice 

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

Salon:Bernie- Hillary.

Source:The New Democrat

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.

Salon Magazine: Sophia McClennen: 'Lets Listen to Bill Maher: How Bill Maher Walks a Fascinating & Tricky Line'

Source:Salon- Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Bill Maher has made his mark as the comedian who refuses to toe the party line—any party’s line.  He has come under attack by both the right and the left for his positions. This week’s show exemplifies his unflinching desire to muddy the waters of extremist thinking and get viewers to ask tough questions and refuse pre-packaged scripts.

He hit the spotlight after September 11 when he rejected the idea that the 9/11 attackers were cowards. Talking with conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza, Maher stated: "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly.” The comment cost him his ABC show. But he soon landed back on his feet with HBO for “Real time with Bill Maher.”

This week’s show, which tackled both the Paris attacks and campus protests over racial discrimination, reminds us why Maher is a comedian we need to watch.  In the wake of the crises on the campuses of University of Missouri and Yale and on the heels of the Paris attacks, Maher rejected the fundamentalist thinking that often tends to frame these issues.  With regard to the student protests, he attacks racism, but defends free speech.  And in connection to the Paris attacks, he asks why liberals refuse to condemn the oppressive fundamentalism connected to the version of Islam practiced by terrorists." 

From Salon Magazine 

"Bill Maher and panelists Dylan Ratigan, Michael Steele and Jay Leno discuss the motivations behind extremists’ attacks on western countries and the GOP's approach to foreign policy in this clip from November 13, 2015." 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- with Dylan Ratigan, Michael Steele, and Jay Leno.

From Real Time With Bill Maher

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, Maher will go after so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) 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. 

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.

Salon Magazine: Aaron R. Hanlon: ;They're The Politically Correct: Ben Carson & Bill O'Reilly Are The Real Intolerant Speech Police'

Source:The Daily Show With Jon Stewart-

Source:The Daily Review

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.

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.

Salon Magazine: Scott Timberg: 'Stop The Hand-Wringing Over Campus PC Culture'

Source:Salon Magazine- Jerry Seinfeld & Chris Rock.

Source:The New Democrat

Scott Timberg, in his column in Salon, which might be the Federal Chief of the Political Correctness Police, wrote the best piece I’ve seen from a New-Left generally pro-political correctness publication about PC. He basically said, “yeah we might do it. But so do they and they’re better at it than we are.” Which is sort of a childish sophomoric argument, but he least he admits his side believes in political correctness. And then he also goes onto say that comedians and other commentators should have free-will in what they’re allowed to talk about. Which is all I argue for in this debate. Free expression and personal responsibility for what you say.

I don’t see what political correctness warriors are fighting for. Do they want a world where everyone whose not male, Caucasian and Christian to not have to be subjected to criticism and humor, even when the criticism and humor is dead on? You’re not going to find that planet in the American galaxy outside of New York City, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles? Americans, believe in free speech and free expression. Regardless of political affiliation. That is all Americans between the Far-Left and Far-Right. Which is eighty-percent of us. Liberals, invented free speech, so of course they’re in favor of it. Conservatives in the real sense, support free speech. And so do Centrists and Libertarians.

When someone uses humor in an accurate funny way to describe the shortcomings of someone else even if that person is from another group, religion, ethnicity, race, whatever it might be, what do the targets of the humor and criticism have to complain about? It would be one thing if the people doing the criticism and humor, just target one group of people, while they defend their group, or groups to the hill. But even then the commentator is subjected to criticism and reaction about what they said. And if the person is inconsistently critical that will come out and be made public. Especially if a lot of what they say is inaccurate.

But don’t try to shut people up in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people who has the most liberal guarantee of free speech in the world. At least among large counties and one thing that truly makes America the number one country in the world, our right to be heard, but also our right to listen and to hear what others have to say about what we’ve said. Political correctness warriors, really need to take up pot and vacation in Hawaii. Perhaps start smoking Cuban cigars since they’ll be legal in America again and learn to chill. They’ll live a lot longer and better for it.

Salon Magazine: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Crackpot

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

Source:The New Democrat

It depends on what you mean by progressive, to sort of paraphrase what Bill Moyers said about, “it depends on what you mean by left-wing.” If you mean left-wing is somehow out of the political mainstream in America, well again how left are you talking about? Center-Left, Far-Left, somewhere in between? If you mean by Progressive, that the job of government is not to manage the lives of everyone and take care of everyone. But instead have a healthy social insurance system that people can use when they need it and have enough money when they retire and guaranteed health insurance, properly regulate the private sector, but not try to run and tax it to the point, that government essentially owns it, then yeah, that’s pretty progressive and very mainstream. Center-Left American politics.

But, Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress, is exactly that. And yes, Socialists are considered mainstream in anywhere in Scandinavia and Britain and France as well. But those countries are very different from America ideologically and even Canada and Germany as well. Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were all supporters of the American economic system. They didn’t put it down, or say America should be more like this country, or that country.

TR, FDR, Truman and LBJ, liked the American private enterprise capitalist model. But also understood that in an economy with a very large private sector, you’re going to have winners and losers. As well as predators who make money from hurting the innocent. And that you needed a government to help people who fall down in the private enterprise system. As well as a regulator to punish and prevent predatory behavior. This right here is the American progressive economic model. Doesn’t sound like Scandinavia, where you have an unitarian national government essentially responsible for the well-being and economic welfare of the entire country.

Bernie Sanders, who I have a lot of respect for, simply for his candor and honesty and even a few issues we agree on, like infrastructure investment, says America should look at Sweden and we should become more like them. If ever Senator Sanders became President Sanders, would move America last the social insurance safety net model, in a private enterprise system. And create a superstate, where the Federal Government would assume the responsibility and take over for the states and individuals when it comes to our well-being. He wouldn’t nationalize the economy, but nationalize certain functions of the economy that he doesn’t believe should be left for private companies and individuals. And tax and regulate other companies to the point that would become essentially public utilities and have to have the country’s best interest at heart.

The Progressive Democrat, the Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as Franklin and Harry Truman’s and LBJ’s, aren’t extreme. Center-Left and on the Left, but not extreme. When you move further Left, you get to the Socialists. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists and move further left and you’re looking at the Marxists and other statists on the Left. And they represent the Far-Left in America, even if they are as mainstream in Scandinavia, as Liberals and Conservatives are in America. Bill Moyers, is right in the sense that progressivism isn’t extreme in America. But democratic socialism, when you’re talking about a superstate there to take care of everyone and meet everyone’s basic necessities in life, is pretty Far-Left, at least in America.

Salon Magazine: Joan Walsh: 'White Progressives Racial Myopia: Why Their Colorblindness Fails Minorities and The Left'

Source:Salon- the presidential and vice presidential nominees for the Green Party in 2016? Actually, the Green Party wouldn't support and all Caucasian ticket. I just thought I would throw it out there. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.

But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech." 

From Salon 

"U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tells Thom Hartmann why he decided to run for President of the United States in 2016.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

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

From Thom Hartmann

Joan Walsh mentioned in her piece, that Bernie Sanders attended Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 I Have a Dream speech. Sanders, was a college student at this point. And she also suggests that Senator Sanders not making race and so-called racial and class issues not a part of his presidential campaign is some how a mistake. 

But, what is Dr. King’s Dream? A society where his children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He wanted a race-blind and color-blind society. Dr. King, is a hero of Senator Sanders and their politics, especially on economic policy are very similar. Dr. King, would be called a Democratic Socialist today as well. And perhaps would even embrace the label like Senator Sanders.

This is going to sound strange, given that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and all, but he’s the voice of reason, or Moderate on the New-Left in America. Senator Sanders, presidential campaign won’t be about racial and class issues. But building a society where all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, however else they were born, can succeed in America. 

You don’t get to a racial and color-blind society if you’re always race conscience and judging people by race and color. And automatically assuming they look at the world in a way, because of their complexion and how they were raised. You get to a color-blind America by not judging people by their race and not always focusing on it. But instead judge people, as well, people, as individuals. Which I know is a radical notion for the Far-Left in America.

Bernie Sanders, similar to Barack Obama in 2008, who was criticized for the same thing by the Far-Left in America, is running for President of the United States. Not to be the President of this leftist group, or these group of Americans, or this section of America, or that one. And you only accomplish that by bringing, especially Democrats in the primaries behind you and to your campaign. Not by playing class warfare and having this group on your side, while you kiss off other Americans. Barack Obama, doesn’t win Indiana and North Carolina, or Virginia in 2008, by running as the African-American President. And telling Americans: “Its our time! Time we elect an African-American president and I’m that candidate!”

As much as the Far-Left in America says they love Martin King, they simply don’t understand him, or agree with his dream. They’re not looking for a colorblind and race blind America. But to continue that, but do it differently and instead of having African-Americans be judged by their race from redneck and preppy Caucasians, have minorities and so-called Progressive Caucasians, judge Caucasians they disagree with by their race. And blame all of America’s troubles on so-called White bigots and White bigotry. 

But again Bernie Sanders is running for President of the United States. And wants to create America where all Americans can succeed and do well. And not fail or succeed, because of how and where they were born.

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.”

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.

Salon Magazine: Mike Conrad: 'America's Anti-Liberal Myth: Why Democrats Learned The Wrong Lesson From 1984'

Source:Salon Magazine- former Vice President of the United States Walter Mondale (Democrat, Minnesota)

Source:The New Democrat

Just correct some of the things that Mike Conrad said. Walter Mondale lost badly in 1984 to Ronald Reagan winning just one state and just over forty-percent of the popular vote not because he was seen as too liberal or too Far-Left. But because he was President Jimmy Carter’s Vice President. President Carter if you remember back in 84 and before that was one of the most unpopular president’s in at least modern American history. 1984, after some really bad economic times in the late 1970s and early 80s, was a year when the American economy started bouncing back. Even with the debt and deficits going up, but people were going back to work with strong economic growth again.

Which meant President Reagan could point how things are now going well, meaning 1984 and say something to the effect, “its morning in America again. Our long national economic nightmare is finally over. People are going back to work and earning a good living again. With the cost of living going down again. Oh by the way, remember 1978-79 and 80 and President Jimmy Carter? Do you really want to go back to that again? And oh by the way, my opponent Walter Mondale was President Carter’s Vice President.” Fritz Mondale was actually a pretty mainstream progressive to liberal politician. A New Democrat even like Jimmy Carter. And didn’t lose badly because of his own politics. But the politics and political activists of the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party. That he had to have to work with to have any shot of winning in 1984.

The lesson from 1968 with Hubert Humphrey, 1972 with George McGovern, 1980 with Jimmy Carter, 1984 with Fritz Mondale and 1988 with Mike Dukakis, all presidential elections that the Democratic Party lost in landslides, except for 1968 is that when the Far-Left runs the party and the leadership needs their Far-Left flank to win, Democrats lose. Because there’s a limit to what Americans expect government to do for them. Especially if they have to pay high taxes to pay for it. Americans tend to like having the freedom to manage their own affairs. And don’t want their government taxing them to the point that their individual decision-making would no longer be an option for them. Because now government is going to do that for them.

Liberalism didn’t lose in 84, but socialism did to the point that Democratic Party regrouped and reformed its message especially economic message. And instead of talking about a government that taxes enough and big enough to take care of everyone, especially the poor, that the message became about how can government help people help themselves. This started in 1988 and I know Governor Mike Dukakis lost forty states, but that had to do with the fact that he wouldn’t defend himself against clear bogus charges from the Bush Campaign. Not because of his message, because his message was about opportunity and freedom. The man ran on Welfare to Work in 1988.

And by 1992 the Democratic economic message was the Opportunity Society with Bill Clinton. Using government not to try to take care of everyone and making dependents of everyone, but using government to empower people in need to help everyone who needed it. Governor Clinton said that Welfare shouldn’t be free. But an investment in human capital and potential. That Welfare should help people in need pay their short-term bills. But help them get on their feet so they can pay their bills themselves with a good job. Infrastructure, education, job training, things that lead to opportunity for people to get the freedom to take care of themselves and manage their own lives. Classical American liberal values of opportunity built around education and work that leads to freedom.

Democrats win when they talk about education, job training, infrastructure, opportunity with the goal in mind to empower people to be able to live in freedom. And paying for these things in a fiscally responsible way that doesn’t hurt anyone especially middle class and low-income Americans. We lose when we don’t respect hard-working Americans tax dollars. Or when we put down people for being successful and wealthy. As if owning your own business and being able to put money away for the future is a bad thing. Or run on big government with all sorts of new programs designed to take care of people so they don’t have to take care of themselves. These are the lessons of 1984, if you want to pick one year. But 68, 72, 80 and 88 would also be good years to choose as well.

The American Prospect: Robert Kuttner: 'The Libertarian Delusion'

Source:The American Prospect-

Source:The New Democrat

Just to start off about the so-called free market and if we’re going to talk about the free market we might as well talk about Santa Clause since neither one of them exists. As much as Libertarians and so-called Conservatives talk about the free market, that is not what they’re talking about since their market wouldn’t be free. Sure, perhaps from government regulations, but non-regulated market is not a free market. Especially if government is subsidizing that market through taxpayer-funded subsidizes.

The other thing about the so-called free market is that business is just part of it. Government is another part, workers are another part and consumers perhaps the most important part of the market. Because without consumers where would business get the resources to do anything and pay their workers. Where would government get the resources to do, well anything. So when you say the free market should set wages, prices and anything else. Are you saying that government, business, workers and consumers should all come together like a Congressional conference committee and decide what the wages and prices should be? Or are you talking about something else.

When Libertarians or Conservatives talk about the so-called free market they sure as hell aren’t talking about bringing the whole market together do negotiate those key issues. They are talking about getting government out-of-the-way so business’s can make these decisions for themselves. Under their so-called free market there would be no such thing as organized labor or collective bargaining. Because again business would have the power and be free to make all of those decisions themselves. So as long as we’re talking markets free or otherwise let’s be clear and factual about what we are talking about.

So what type of market are we talking about if we’re not talking about a free market? We’re talking about the private market and private enterprise. Which is what produces most of the products that we all consume, pay for and generally enjoy and tend to pay for at affordable rates. And everyone whose to the right of a Marxist meaning the Democratic Socialist all the way over to the Libertarian on the Right believes in some form of a private market. It all depends on what type of private market and how big it should be. How much it should be regulated and how much it should be taxed. With the Democratic Socialist the market would be the smallest and most regulated. With the central government being the dominant player. With the Libertarian the private market would be the biggest and not regulated or taxed at all.

And since we all want a private market, well everyone except for the Marxist, it’s just a question to what degree. And for me as a Liberal I want a huge market with as much freedom and choice and consumers with money to spend as possible. That is regulated and taxed yes, but to protect consumers and workers from predators. And to provide government with the resources that it has to have to provide the services that only it can provide and that it does well. Security, law enforcement, regulations, education, infrastructure, safety net and job training for our low-income low-skilled adults so they can also live in freedom and off of government dependence.

The libertarian idea of the market is basically government go home. Other than protecting the borders and stopping criminals that hurt people. The social democratic idea of the market is that government provides most of the essentials that people need to live well in life. With private enterprise being for things that are more luxury items and things we would use recreationally and transportation. But that the central government provides us with most if not all the essential insurances that we need in life. That people would be free not to take responsibility over their own lives and not to have to make choices. I want an educated society that is protected from predators with everyone having the knowledge to be able to manage their own lives themselves both from an economic and personal perspective.
Source:Liberty Pen

Salon Magazine: Bill Curry: 'We Can Stop The Neo-Cons: Here's What a Truly Progressive Foreign Policy Would Look Like'

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) 32nd President of the United States (1933-45)

Source:The New Democrat

I hate to break it to anyone who calls them self a Progressive today, but the Progressives gave us the U.S. Department of Defense. They gave us the national security state. Which includes things like the CIA, FBI, the National Security Council, NATO and why we are today responsible for Europe’s defense as American taxpayers. They gave us the Vietnam War after they got us involved in the Korean War and won World War II at least far as leading that war. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman gave America the tools to fight and win the Cold War. That Lyndon Johnson used to put America in the Vietnam War. Can anyone who calls them self a Progressive today say they support any of those policies?

So when I read Bill Curry or anyone else who calls them self a Progressive say “its time for a progressive foreign policy”, is that what they mean with a big national security state that works with our foreign allies to police the world? Or are they calling for something much more passive and isolationist much further left where we step back as far as our traditional leadership role and let international organizations take the lead in dealing with these international crisis’? Bill Curry in his Salon piece seems to suggesting a little of both. That we be part of more international organizations like the International Criminal Court. But where we work with our foreign allies to address situations around the world. Instead of acting unilaterally to deal with foreign crisis’.

Progressive at least in the classical sense is not about being a dove. Not about being soft and passive to the point that you’re essentially a pacifist or isolationist or both. A true Progressive believes in at the very least self-defense when it comes to their own country. And that you have to be strong enough to protect what you value and cherish. Which is your own state and the people you represent. Now the debate would be about how strong you need to be and how much you need to invest and when you should act. But not about whether you should be strong or not. And that is something that today’s so-called Progressives need to understand if progressivism is really the ideology they want to back. Instead of being part of something that is more leftist.
Source:Periscope Film

Salon Magazine: Magazine Bert Neuborne: The First Amendment As We Know it Today Didn't Exist Until The 1960s

Source:The New Democrat

I guess my question for Bert Neuborne who wrote this piece over at Salon would be did our First Amendment as we at least know it today didn’t exist until the 1960s, or is it just that the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal courts misinterpret the First Amendment and our Freedom of Speech? Because I think it is pretty obvious that arresting a political candidate for speaking out against a war, or newspapers for endorsing the opponent of the president is unconstitutional. I think you would have a hard time finding even a Far-Right judge today who would go along with that. At least when it comes to endorsing the opposition.

Again my question about have we always had the same First Amendment, but it was interpreted wrongly in the past, or has it simply changed over the years form one way or the other? Because our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals as I at least call them couldn’t of anticipated all the modern forms of communication that we have today and have had in the past. They couldn’t even anticipate the telephone landlines even or radio when they wrote the Constitution. Doesn’t mean our First Amendment doesn’t cover all of these modern devices. Because whether you speak this way or the other and use this device to communicate or another, you’re still speaking. And government at all levels is very limited in how they can regulate your speech under the First Amendment.

The last fifty-years or so the Federal courts have essentially interpreted Free Speech as covering every form of speech with few exceptions having to do with inciting violence, libel, yelling fire that isn’t there in tight public spaces. Now is that because our liberal Free Speech has only existed in the last fifty-years or so, or is that because the Federal courts were wrong or correct depending on your perspective in how they interpreted the First Amendment in the first 180 plus years or before the 1960s. I’m not a lawyer or historian obviously, but I believe our First Amendment as it is today and with all the speech that it protects has always been with us. Based on Congress shall make not law that infringes on the right of free speech.

Salon Magazine: Luke Brinker Talks to Rula Jebreal: Rula Jebreal Sounds Off on Bill Maher Islam Spat

Source:The New Democrat

First of all just about this so-called interview. It sounded more like a conversation to me and a slanted one at that. With the Luke Brinker taking the typical Salon leftist political correctness slant. Suggesting that by asking "does Bill Maher's criticism of Islam give rise to new Islamaphobia". Another example  would be "does Bill Maher's criticism make him sound like a Neoconservative". You can click the link in this post to see the actual conversation yourself.

First of all if you saw the show yourself the Real Time episode that Rula Jebreal was on with Bill Maher, it was essentially three against one. Bill Maher, Senator Angus King an Independent by the way, hardly anyone's radical and General Wesley Clark a center-left Democrat. Especially Maher and Senator King were defending free speech and Maher's right to speak freely especially express the truth. With Rula Jebreal trying to put the focus on Maher and herself and debate Islam. With her comparing Maher to an anti-semite of all things.

Any criticism against Islam even when it comes from Liberals and other leftists and you get labeled as a racist or some other type of bigot by the political correctness Left. Even when Muslims such as Reza Aslam are quick to point out that Bill Maher is not a racist and besides Islam is not even a race to begin with. And that is what I at least saw on that show. Rula Jebreal making the politically correct argument against those who would criticize Islam. And Bill Maher as well as Liberals sticking up for free speech. Freedom of Speech vs. political correctness in America. 

Salon Magazine: Rula Jebreal to Bill Maher: 'When You Talk About Islam in a Certain Way, Some People Feel Threatened'

Source:The New Democrat

This whole debate has been coming from really the Hollywood and other political correctness leftists against Bill Maher. Because instead of using his time to just critique Christians when it comes to religion, being the true Atheist he is, he goes after other religions he's not a fan of and other radicals from other religions that he doesn't like. With the far-left responding by saying essentially "what are you doing? You are supposed  to go after Christians and Jews and Israel. Not people we want to protect". Because they tend not to be Anglo and Western European.

Senator Angus King who is an Independent by the way, but caucus's with Senate Democrats at least in this Congress, I believe had the best line in this exchange. When he said that "free speech is not just speech that you agree with, but also speech you disagree with and may be offended by.". Which is really the whole debate on the Left in America with Bill Maher getting in trouble with the far-left and Liberals such as myself defending his right to speak freely regardless of what others think of it.

Bill Maher getting in trouble with political correctness fascists on the far-left who can't handle anything that contradicts their ideological arguments, especially when they are facts that contradict them. As Bill Maher said that he's gotten into trouble for speaking the truth on Islam. Again we are talking about free speech. Not politically correct speech, or politically incorrect speech. But free speech that protects everyone's right to express their opinions. And people shouldn't get in trouble for speaking their minds and getting censored, especially when it is the truth. 

Salon Magazine: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher's Berkley Speech is a Mistake

Source:The New Democrat

I'm going to give you a prefect example of what right-wingers are talking about when they say what conservative writer Jonah Goldberg titled in his book back in I believe 2008, what he called Liberal Fascism. Even though the title Liberal Fascism is a bogus title. I mean you can't be both a Liberal and a fascist, you know it is one or the other. Just like you can't be both a Socialist and a corporatist. You can't be anti-corporate, which is what Socialists are and be a pro-corporate, which is what corporatists are.

Berkley University, which is what I call California University, has or a group of their left-wing ill-liberal students have decided that they not only do not agree with comedian, left-wing comedian, by the way Bill Maher's views on Islam, but that they do not want him speaking at their university. So the school has canceled the Maher speech there. Now here's a couple of reasons why that is a big mistake. One is practical because Berkley is a public university and part of the California State Government. So Maher's free speech rights to me at least as a non-lawyer are being violated.

But the other issue gets to a philosophical one. Banning someone or canceling on someone because you not only disagree with your views, but you are offended by them. "Don't allow that guy to speak because we disagree with him and he would be saying things that we don't want our people to hear". Fascism 101 and why right-wingers call some on the Left 'liberal fascists'. Even though again there's nothing liberal about fascism, because the main value of liberalism is free speech and the right for one to speak freely regardless of what others may think about what they have to say.

I mean you are so offended or believe what someone is saying is no wrong and just utter garbage (or something else), let the person speak and then show people how wrong they are. That is what liberal democracy and free speech are about. The right to be heard and to be able to make your case. Knowing that you are not the only person in that country with that right. And that may include people you make disagree with. Which is something that people who are on the far-left in America, people who I call leftist fascists who are addicted political correctness, do not understand. 

Salon Magazine: Michael Burstein: 'We Need a New Constitution'

Source:The New Democrat

Michael Burstein's amendments, or even new United States Constitution was not as radical or social democratic as I was expecting. I perhaps was expecting to see proposals that would move America away from its federalist tradition and system and try to move to more of a unitarian form of government. Where the states aren't nearly as powerful with as much responsibility, because that responsibility would now be in the hands of the Federal Government. Michael Lind who also writes at Salon has proposed doing things like that.

But to get the Burstein proposals and what I would do differently.

Congressional Term Limits

I'm against them for both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and I'll tell you why. I don't like the idea of government telling me or any other American who we can vote for. And this is what I would do differently. Guarantee the Right to Vote, so there's one amendment I would like to see to the U.S. Constitution. And end gerrymandering for both Democrats and Republicans. How you do that? The states would still write their U.S. House districts under the condition that each district would have to represent the state. So you a state 55-45 one way or the other or even closer than that, say like Texas or California.

California is more like 70-30 for Democrats. The state couldn't put all of the Democrats or Republicans in one district or a few districts. They would have to spread them out. And if the state is 55-45 for one party or the other or closer than that, than that is how the districts would look. So the majority would get a majority of the districts, but it would have to be represented of their overall state majority. And the state would no longer look like that only Republicans or Democrats would live there. Because the other party would have several districts that favor their party as well.

Term Limits for the U.S. Supreme Court

I'm against that because now we are not talking about limiting voters choice in who they can vote for. But limiting the President's choice in who they could appoint or reappoint, which is my next point. The U.S. Supreme Court is simply under represents a country of 310 million people with fifty states. Not proposing to turn the U.S. Supreme Court into a democratic institution. Just saying that nine members is simply too small, especially in a country this huge and this divided politically. I would go to fifty justices not including the Chief Justice and their deputy, as well as a Minority Leader to try to organize the minority on the court. One U.S. Justice for each state. and have each Justice serve six-year terms and then have to be reappointed to stay on the Court.

Public Financing of U.S. Elections

Another bad idea. Why? Because now you're taking more power away from American voters. And you may argue that the current system does that. True, but this would be another way of doing that by saying that the only roles that voters have is to vote and perhaps volunteer. But not be able to endorse the candidate or incumbent of their choice. The person that may represent them in the House or Senate or as President. And what would make that worst that now all us as taxpayers would be forced to subsidize candidates and incumbents that we simply do not like and perhaps are even doing a bad job. Public financing is another way of saying taxpayer financing of public elections.

But here's what I would do instead. Full-disclosure of all campaign contributions to call campaigns. Everyone and every group that raises money for political campaigns would have to report those contributions and contributors to the Federal Election Commission that would be publicly reported. So no more dark money or dark packs because all of these groups Left and Right will now be public and so would their contributors. And if they are controversial, candidates and incumbents would think twice about taking money from them if they believe those public contributions could hurt them politically. And we would probably see less negative and false advertising as a result.

Right to a Quality Education

Finally Michael Burstein and I agree on something! Now the only question is how we bring that about. The Federal Government of course in a country this size and diverse should not be running the education system. Or create one education system, because the fact is we have hundreds or more education systems in this country. Which simply comes from being this big, this diverse, this spread out and frankly this liberal with all of the decentralization of power in the country. At least at the governmental level.

But with all of the poverty and impoverished areas of the country and with education being a national priority because of how it affects the economy, there has to be a real federal role for education in America. Which is mostly about funding and research and to a certain extent seeing that basic needs are met. Are all students getting an education or regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or not and that includes special needs students. We obviously can't guarantee equal outcomes as much as Socialists may believe they can. But what we can guarantee is that every student has a quality opportunity to be successful in America regardless of where they go to school.

So what the Federal Government should do is give the underserved school districts and states the resources, financially mostly that it needs to see that all of their students have the tools that they need to do well.

Encourage financially people who are well-educated to teach in underserved areas.

Encourage things like public school choice so no student is forced to go to a low-performing school.

Lets pay teachers like lawyers and doctors and the Feds could help with the financing to pay those salaries.

Make college free for all qualified high school graduates who serve in public service for at least two years after graduating college. The Feds could finance that. And for qualified high school graduates who decide not to serve in public service after graduating college, make their college affordable with a college financing program that they, their parents, their employers and their parents employers would all pay into until the student is ready for college.

Michael Burstein proposed a lot of things I disagree with as far as what he would do. But did put some goals and ideas on the table that if were amended the way I did, or something close to that, I could go along with that would improve our liberal, not social democracy in America. 

Salon Magazine: Michael Lind: 'The South is Holding America Hostage'

Source:FreeState MD

I seem to be writing a lot of responses lately to people who are on the lets say on the social democratic left in America who do not like our form of government to begin with because we are a federal republic. Instead of a unitary government where most of the power is centralized with the federal government. With states and local governments only being left to do what the feds allow them to do. 

The United Kingdom of Britain is a perfect example of a unitary government. And I believe they are paying a heavy price for that now. With Scotland looking to break away from Britain all together. And when Social Democrats get the opportunity to say "look-see, we told you that federalism doesn’t work and we need to become like Europe. And basically take their form of centralize government and apply that to the United States". 

Under a unitary governmental system, we would  basically only have states in name only. You try a system like that in America and you would see states looking to break away and not just in the South. But you would see states that are more open to a strong progressive or socialist form of government looking to break away because they would say "we do not need Washington telling us what we should do. We can run our own domestic affairs".

The latest thing that Social Democrats like Michael Lind and others are critiquing about federalism,who I do respect in Michael Lind’s case because you always know where he’s coming from and he can back up what he believes, but now they are using the government shutdown and Southern-Anglo (for the most part backlash) in the Tea Party a combo of Libertarians and Neo-Confederates, to say that "federalism doesn't work and we need a more centralize form of government". 

But today's Progressives who are really not lets say, but their point against federalism is that. "Look because these Neo-Confederates are in power in the House of Representatives and because of this they can keep the government shutdown by themselves even though they can’t reopen the government on their own". Are saying, "because of these Neo-Confederates we need to change our Constitution and nationalize our social insurance system and tell the states to sit down and shut up. Because Uncle Sammy is now completely in charge".

As I blogged just last night the problem with America is not our Constitution. Or our federal republican, (small r) form of government. American liberal democracy is not the problem with America, but some of our so-called public officials who are in office are. And we have a good way to deal with people who are not responsible enough to govern in America. Which is to fire them and even if we can’t defeat all the Neo-Confederates in the House of Representatives, we can defeat enough House Republicans to put power back in the hands of Democrats who not only know how to govern, but who want to and would govern responsibly.