Laura Flanders: Pam Brown- On Occupy Student Debt

Source:The Laura Flanders Show- interviewing Pam Brown.

"We as a society view our monetary debts as a moral issue: We took out the money, we should have to pay it back. The problem with this logic is that the money we are giving the banks, financial institutions and our government never existed before the interest we incurred piled up. 

Pam Brown of the Occupy Student Debt Campaign and Strike Debt says there's another way out of our predicament: If our numbers are large enough, we can collectively refuse to pay back the trillions that are being extorted from us. Watch the full conversation with Laura Flanders and visit GRITtv.org to learn more."

Source:Laura Flanders

At risk of stating the obvious and perhaps introducing some people to common sense: if you don't want to be buried in debt (like mobsters who bury unfriendly witnesses) then don't borrow too much money. 

You should be spending your 20s and 30s building your career. Not looking for the cheapest, most dangerous place to live, in the most dangerous place and perhaps sharing that place with 2-3 other people (who are also buried in debt, or perhaps don't even have college degrees and work multiple jobs just to survive) because you are buried in debt and can't afford to live anywhere else, even if you actually have a good income.

Another risk at stating the obvious: college is  not free. Regardless of what any left-wing politician might tell you about having some plan to make college free for everyone, it never will be. Even if you have a scholarship, you have to go to that particular school and play sports there or be in some other program that the school values and complete it successfully, to keep that scholarship. 

I'm all in favor of making college affordable for everyone. But you don't do that by promising the world to everyone (which is what a 4 year college degree can get you) and telling them it's not going to cost them anything. You do that by making college more affordable upfront and empowering more parents to put money away for their kids college education, as well as telling students that if you serve your country one way or another, for a certain period of time, the government will wipe away your college financially. But you can't make something free that comes with a cost for everyone. 

Thom Hartmann: Senator Sherrod Brown: 'Not Your Eisenhower Republicans'

Source:Thom Hartmann- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas) 34th President of the United States.

"Thom Hartmann talks with Sherrod Brown, Senator Sherrod Brown

Bio: U.S. Senator (D-OH)

Website:Senator Sherrod Brown about changes in both political parties over the years." 

From Thom Hartmann

In case it isn't obvious enough, (and if it isn't, you were probably born last night, at least when it comes to American politics) today's Republican Party, is not even the Dwight Eisenhower Republican Party, let alone the Grand Ole Party. And in complete fairness, today's Democratic Party is no longer John F. Kennedy's party, the faction of the Democratic Party that I'm from. I completely agree with Thom Hartmann (for perhaps the first time this year) and Sherrod Brown, who I tend to agree with more often, on a lot of other different things.

CBS News: Mitt Romney: 'I Won't Round Up Illegal Immigrants and Deport Them'

Source:CBS News- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) sounding reasonable on immigration. But he also goes by Flip Flopper, so wait til tomorrow and you might get a different position from him.

"Mitt Romney on Wednesday said at Univision's "Meet the Candidates" forum in Coral Gables, Fla., that his plan for immigration reform "isn't to deport people."

From CBS News

Looks like Mitt Romney is on a "who can I offend next tour." Yesterday it was 47% of the country. Today it was Tea Part Nationalists on illegal immigration. The way he's going, whose going to be left to vote for Mitt, especially after his family votes?

Brave New Foundation: 'Law & Disorder- How the System Really Works'

Source:Brave New Foundation- Dennis Farinia, when he was on Seasons 15 and 16 of Law & Order. RIP

Source:The Daily Journal

"On Law & Order, everything makes sense: the police chase after violent bad guys, the accused get a fair trial, and justice is blind. But is that the reality in the United States? Watch this video to have your mind blown about how unjust our system truly is.

Produced with the partnership of the American Civil Liberties Union, Constitution Project, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

From Brave New Foundation

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. Their job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.

CBS News: Mike Wallace: ‘The Homosexuals (1967)’

Source:CBS News- from the 1967 CBS News documentary.

Source:The Daily Journal

”It’s been nearly 50 years since CBS News first took on the subject of gay rights. It was in a documentary. You’ll recognize the host, Mike Wallace, but you won’t recognize your country.

“Most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality,” reported Wallace in the documentary. “A CBS poll shows two out of three Americans look on homosexuality with disgust, discomfort, or fear.”

The year was 1967 and whoever named the program cut straight to the chase: “CBS Reports: The Homesexuals.”

From CBS News

“The Homosexuals” is a 1967 episode of the documentary television series CBS Reports. The hour-long broadcast featured a discussion of a number of topics related to homosexuality and homosexuals. Mike Wallace anchored the episode, which aired on March 7, 1967. Although this was the first network documentary dealing with the topic of homosexuality, it was not the first televised in the United States. That was The Rejected, produced and aired in 1961 on KQED, a public television station out of San Francisco.Three years in the making, “The Homosexuals” went through two producers and multiple revisions. The episode included interviews with several gay men, psychiatrists, legal experts and cultural critics, interspersed with footage of a gay bar and a police sex sting. “The Homosexuals” garnered mixed critical response.”

Source:Kim Smythe- from the 1967 CBS News documentary.

From Kim Smythe

“Veteran journalist Mike Wallace, who died Saturday at age 93, had many claims to fame and one credit that might be considered a claim to infamy — his participation in the sensationalistic 1960s documentary The Homosexuals.

Wallace would later express regret about the tone of the documentary, which aired only once, March 7, 1967, on CBS. Hosted and narrated by Wallace, it characterized gay men as promiscuous and lonely, given to fleeting, anonymous sexual encounters. It acknowledged the discrimination they faced, but with “no sense of righteous indignation” about that, the journal Film Threat once noted. The program largely ignored lesbians. Still, it marked a breakthrough in gay visibility on television.

“Years after the broadcast, Mike Wallace would admit regret that The Homosexuals was not more balanced and sympathetic in its focus,” according to the Film Threat article. “In 1995, Wallace made a surprise appearance at New York’s Lighthouse Cinema, which was showing The Homosexuals as part of a Gay Pride line-up. The audience treated Wallace with deep respect and the veteran newsman hosted an impromptu Q&A session after the film was screened.”

Source:The Advocate- from Mike Wallace's 1967 documentary.

From The Advocate

If you look at this documentary especially by the standards and culture of today, Mike Wallace’s 1967 documentary about homosexuality looks very homophobic. It wouldn’t be made today at least the way it was written and the people that were interviewed, especially Christian-Right folks who think that homosexuality should be a crime and we should go back to Beaver Cleaver’s and Ozzie and Harriet’s 1950s America. And the Far-Left political correctness movement would beat the hell out it talking about how bigoted the documentary is.

But to state the obvious: 1967 is not 2012. The view that homosexuality was a crime and a sin was actually mainstream even in the late 1960s. And if you had no issues with gays and homosexuality back then and believed gays should be treated equally as straights, you would be considered a radical back then.

In my personal opinion and I believe I’m part of a solid majority today in 2012, gays are entitled to the same legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities as straights, just as I believe that ethnic and racial minorities have the same rights and responsibilities as European-Americans and even Anglo-Saxons. But if I was around in 1967 with those same views, I would be the radical. And people who are considered Far-Rightists today, would be part of the mainstream when it comes to American public opinion and culture.

The Young Turks: Conservatism & The Republican Party: Granddaughter of Icon Barry Goldwater'

Source:The Young Turks Michael Shore talking to Barry Goldwater's daughter CC.

"Michael Shure of The Young Turks interviews CC Goldwater about her grandfather, Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican Presidential nominee in 1964.  CC Goldwater had the honor of announcing the voting results of Arizona's delegation at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC.  How would Senator Goldwater fit in to the current day's Republican Party?" 

From The Young Turks 

To answer Michael Shore's question to CC Goldwater about what's changed with the Republican Party, since her grandfather was alive and serving in the Republican Party: the Dixiecrats who were in Congress with Senator Goldwater in the 1950s and 60s, are now Republicans today. 

40-50 years ago, Dixiecrats, who were Southern, right-wing, Neo-Confederate Democrats, in the House and Senate. Those folks are Republicans today, thanks to the civil rights movement, as well as women's and gay liberation, which pushed the right-wing out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party, where they've been ever since.

Jack Paar Show: Robert F. Kennedy: March 13th, 1964

Source:David Von Pein- Jack Paar talking to Robert F. Kennedy, in 1964.

Source:The Daily Journal

"Friday, March 13, 1964 -- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy makes his first public appearance since the assassination of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, which occurred exactly sixteen weeks earlier (on November 22, 1963).

RFK elected to make his first post-assassination public appearance on "The Jack Paar Program". The studio audience, as expected, gave Bobby a lengthy standing ovation.

This video includes the first part of Jack Paar's 3/13/64 interview with Bobby Kennedy."

From David Von Pein

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a few months after his brother President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, goes on NBC's the Jack Parr Show. I guess he wanted to get back to living a normal life, or as normal of a life that a public official can have in America and get out of the funk he was in from losing his brother and did it in a big way by going on Jack Parr and trying to communicate to the world that he and his family were doing okay, or as well as they could be doing after seeing one of their family members assassinated. 

Bobby Kennedy came back in a big way in 1964. RFK wanted to make his life worth serving again the only way he knew how outside of his family by serving the public and being involved in public affairs. He was already Attorney General of the United States, but had other interests as well.

As Attorney General, RFK was influential in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. His speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, resigning from office right after that and running for U.S. Senate in New York. Where he wins there, partially thanks to President Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater with New York being one of those States. 

Bobby Kennedy not only came back in 1964, but came back in a big public way that few other people would've been able to come back from after a tragedy. Like losing a sibling in the manner that he did. 

The Jack Paar Show, was perfect for RFK because Jack was a very funny man, but also up to date on current affairs and interested in them. And was Bobby Kennedy being a Kennedy with their famous wit and intelligence.

1964, was a very depressing and yet liberating year for Bob Kennedy. First, he was Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, but for a man he hated President Lyndon Johnson, who was President Kennedy's Vice President. LBJ, not exactly best friends with RFK, but at least he let the Attorney General do his job. Unlike RFK who was always undermining any authority and responsibility that LBJ had as Vice President. But that is really a different discussion and perhaps debate, especially for RFK loyalists. 

RFK, didn't want to work for President Johnson and that is one reason why he decided to run for the Senate in 1964. And restore some freedom over his own personal life and career. And going on Jack Paar in early 1964, was the start of RFK returning to public life again.