CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Norman Thomas (1953)

Source:CBS News talking to Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas in 1953.

Source:FreeState MD

“LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH DR. NORMAN THOMAS – National Archives and Records Administration 1953-02-16 – ARC Identifier 95979 / Local Identifier LW-LW-48 – TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Hardy Burt talk with Dr. Norman Thomas, Socialist Leader, on criticism of the new Eisenhower administration policies regarding Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek, communism, bombing of Manchurian bases, recognition of the People’s Republic of China, Korean truce, a third World War and world peace. Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon.”

From the Public Resource 

What I respect about Norman Thomas (even though he was a Socialist and we probably agree on almost nothing as it relates to economic policy) is that he was a real Democrat. A real American Democrat, a real Democratic Socialist. 

Norman Thomas was probably against communism as much as any Conservative, or Liberal and spoked out against communism. Which is different from democratic socialism. Democratic socialism, is democratic and communism is authoritarian. At least in how it’s been practiced around the world. He wasn’t one of these far-lefties that spoke up in favor of Communists and other authoritarians, who were dictators around the world, for a couple of reasons. One, he was against communism, but also because of how badly socialism has been made to look like.

Thanks to the success of right-wingers, going back at least since the late 1960s in America, socialism has been made to look like communism, as if they are part of the same philosophy, because they are not. And Democratic Socialists like Norman Thomas tend to believe in at least a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise. Just not at the expense of the people and what want as many people as possible to benefit from private enterprise.

Norman Thomas, was the Bernie Sanders of his time. He and Henry Wallace, another Democratic Socialist, who ran for president for the Progressive Party in 1948, were very similar when it came to economic policy. But Thomas, was perhaps not as much as a dove when it came to foreign affairs and national security.

If you pay attention to this video, you consistently hear Norman Thomas criticize the Soviet Union, totalitarianism and even communism. That the Russian people, were essentially subjects of the Russian Government in the Soviet Union. You didn’t hear him unlike others on the Far-Left in America, try to claim that Russia was misunderstood during the Cold War. Or even try to suggest that America might have been the bad guys in that war of words. Or even the wrong country won that war.

Thomas, was a Socialist in the European sense. Democratic in nature and even supported capitalism and private enterprise. But wanted a big central government to manage the resources of the country and support the people with a welfare state. So no one would have to go without, or have too much, according to him

Thom Hartmann: Caller: How Big Should Government Be?

Source:Thom Hartmann debating a caller on his talk show.

Source:FreeState MD

“Thom Hartmann talks with a caller who wants to know the purpose of government and how big Thom thinks it should be. Thom shares what the Constitution has to say.”

From Thom Hartmann

“Thom Hartmann will be leaving The Big Picture TV show (on RT TV and Free Speech TV) at the end of September. We’ve had a great run with The Big Picture and earlier this summer we decided to discontinue that evening show so we could focus more directly on our daily 3-hour midday show, The Thom Hartmann Program.

Having complete editorial control over a TV show syndicated internationally into more than 700 million homes was a great (and rare) opportunity. We worked hard not to do “sports” or “soap opera” when covering politics, and instead focus on issues; we believe we accomplished a lot in that regard. We’re grateful to RT for the opportunity, and for fully honoring our contractual independence at all times.

You’ll still be hearing and seeing me on The Thom Hartmann Program, which is growing weekly in the noon-3 PM ET daypart." 

From Thom Hartmann 

Source:Russia Today is Vladimir Putin's Russian funded news network.

“How big should government be” 

From Thom Hartmann

In this editorial, Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough to insure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. And I guess that means health insurance as well and education.

Does that mean that Thom believes that the Federal Government should be running the entire healthcare and education systems in this country? I know he’s in favor of Medicare For All, which would basically make Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in this country. I disagree with him on that, but I know he’s in favor of Medicare single-payer for all. But my question would be for Thom, does that mean he’s also in favor of the U.S. Government running the entire health care system in this country, or just as it relates to health insurance?

The purpose of any government in any free society, especially a liberal democracy like America, is to protect the innocent in society from both foreign and domestic predators. And to ensure that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, culture, is treated equally under law and that everyone has a real shot to succeed in society and make it in America.

The purpose of government in a free society, especially in a liberal democracy like America, is not to run our lives for us, or to protect the party in power from the people, or to try to guarantee total equality, so there are no rich or no poor. But to see to that as many innocent people as possible are protected from predators, that predators are justly punished for their crimes, and that everyone has a real shot in society to make it in America on their own and live in freedom.

This post was updated 11/03/2023.

NBC Sports: NFL 1980-AFC Final-Oakland Raiders @ San Diego Chargers: Dick Enberg Intro

Source:NBC Sports intro for the 1980 AFC Championship.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Battle of the Bay. Chargers and Raiders. AFC Championship Game. The great Dick Enberg on the mic with the late great Merlin Olsen. Also notice the fan showing a poster with the N logo even though NBC already switched to a new logo (not bright) 

I OWN NOTHING!! EVERYTHING BELONGS TO NBC/COMCAST/NFL AND ONLY THEM!!”

From Jean

Dick Enberg with a real good intro here. Not his best, but I believe he was one of the better announcers at the intro because of his voice, his passion for sports, perhaps especially football and he knew what he was talking about as well. So he brought a realness to his work.

As far as this game, I wish I could’ve found something more than just this intro, but this was all that was available at this time. But the Raiders-Chargers AFC Final was a classic matchup of a very good and talented, well-coached intelligent team in the Raiders. Against a very explosive offense especially in their passing game in the Chargers. Who also had a good running game, but never played enough defense to get actually get to a Super Bowl. And still have only been to one Super Bowl in their entire history.

National Review: The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell- 'Margaret Thatcher Was a Good Socialist'

Source:The National Review- The Last Word With Lawrence (never call me Larry) O'Donnell.

Source:National Review

I’m glad to see MSNBC produce an editorial in favor of socialism, because it goes to my overall argument of how far to the left of American liberalism that they tend to be and represent more of the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. Or the Democratic Socialist Party or Green Party, than they do Liberal Democrats. But having said that I’ll give credit where credit is due. And give Larry O’Donnell (as I call him) credit for when he says that Margaret Thatcher didn’t eliminate British socialism as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom.

But what Prime Minister Thatcher did was simply reformed socialism by getting rid of the sad socialism in the British economy and government. By privatizing industries and requiring people who can work and take care of themselves, to actually do that for themselves and nat be able to collect public assistance indefinitely. But left the Socialism that works in Britain as it has to do with their welfare state like their National Health Service. But things like government spending went up when she was Prime Minister and never had to deal with an opposition controlled Parliament, which is what American president’s have to deal with on a regular basis.

Even though the United Kingdom has a Conservative Party and a Labour Party, they are basically divided between two Socialist parties ideologically. At least how they would look in the United States. With the Conservative Party looking like FDR New Deal Progressive Democrats. Big believers in central government and the welfare state to take care of people. But also big believers in a strong national defense, a robust internationalist foreign-policy, strong law enforcement, rule of law, tough on terrorism and so-forth.

Things that McGovern Progressive Democrats in America today who are different from the FDR Democrats, tend not to be in favor of. Except as it has to do with the welfare state and the big central government. So Maggie Thatcher looks pretty conservative by British standards, but Britain is essentially a Socialist state whether the Conservatives or Labour’s are in power and they do not look very conservative in America.

As Larry O’Donnell said, Prime Minster Thatcher as much as she went off against socialism, she was really going after the bad socialism in Britain. But had strong socialist views herself and wanted to keep the socialism in Britain that works as it get’s to their welfare state. But eliminate the bad socialism in the country. Like the state-owned industries and indefinite public assistance for people who are able to take care of themselves.

BBC: Brian Magee Interviews Noam Chomsky- 'The Ideas of Noam Chomsky'

Source:BBC News- Professor Noam Chomsky, being interviewed by BBC News, in 1977.

Source:FreeState MD

"An old interview mostly on Chomsky's linguistics work, philosophy, and some remarks on political views near the end.

Note: the video is taken from Youtube, where it was broken into five segments, when I re-merged the segments the audio got a little strange, so that before the next segment's audio starts the audio from the last segment jumps in for a fraction of a second. Its tolerable though."

From  Supremo Ichigo

I was in a debate about a year ago with someone who self-describes their politics as libertarian. And we were talking about Professor Noam Chomsky and this person was describing Noam Chomsky’s politics as socialist. And I told this person that Professor Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist. Which might sound like an oxymoron, because how can someone be both a Libertarian and a Socialist. Libertarians are always looking to shrink the size of government and Socialists are always looking to grow the size of government.

Source:BBC- interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky

Libertarians tend to think that government is way too big and Socialists especially in America tend to think that government is way too small. This person said that: “you can’t be both, it’s sort of one or the other”. And what I trying to get across to them and not believing I was successful, is that you can be both as long as you aren’t socialist or libertarian on both economic and social issues. That you have to believe in a high deal of individual freedom at least as it relates to personal or economic freedom.

So what is a Libertarian Socialist: It’s someone whose liberal libertarian on social-issues. Meaning they do not want government interfering with our personal lives including as it relates to prohibition. And in America are even in favor of gun rights, against the War on Drugs, censorship even as it relates to hate speech. Doesn’t really sound like someone who would be a Progressive today, but what they do have in common with Socialists  (again, Libertarian Socialists ) is they both have a big role for government in the economy.

People who are liberal-libertarian on social-issues, but socialist on economic policy. And believe in things like the welfare state, high taxes for social spending and so-forth. Big regulations on private enterprise, big believers in the right to organize and so-forth. Libertarian socialism is a form of socialism at least in its liberal not paternalistic form. That government shouldn’t try to run our lives, but be there to provide us the services that can’t be trusted to the private sector.

Libertarian socialism is the only form of socialism or that I respect as a Liberal. Because even though they believe in a big state as it relates to the economy, they do not believe that government should be trying to run our lives for us and are not pure statists at least. And even believe in a high deal of economic freedom as long as it’s highly taxed and regulated. So no one get’s left behind in society. This is not my philosophy, but it’s a lot better from what we are hearing from so-called Progressives today who seem to be believe in a big role for government in the economy, but also in our personal lives. As far as what personal choices we are allowed to make.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1982-Baltimore Blast @ New York Arrows: First Half

Source:Joey Teefizz- New York Arrows.

Source:The Daily Journal

“MISL Soccer in New York-please see the great contest at halftime with Shep messing in goal with civilians shooting on him…then see Zungul go wild…”

From Joey Teefizz 

The New York Arrows were around in the early days of the MISL. Late 1970s to mid 1980s or so. Pro indoor soccer has never caught on in New York. Which is a shame, because New York is a great sports market. A great pro soccer market and the biggest sports market in America. 

And indoor soccer is a great sport when played well and is a very exciting fast-paced game. But only the New York Red Bulls of the MLS an outdoor soccer league has ever caught on and done well in the New York/North Jersey area.

Unlike the Baltimore Blast, that have been around since I believe day one in the MISL, which was 1979 and are still in business today. And like the San Diego Sockers are the class of American indoor soccer. As far as the type of fan support that they’ve had and all the championships that they’ve won.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-12/22/84-New Jersey Cosmos @ Los Angeles Lazers: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- you tell me who Wes McLeod is.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“MISL Soccer Cosmos at Lazers-good quality tape with some good goals…small crowd as usual in LA.” 

From Joey Teefizz

Two of the better clubs and better markets in the MISL. If soccer can’t succeed in Los Angeles and the New York/New Jersey area, it won’t make it in America, period. Because those markets are so big and they are very good soccer markets anyway for both soccer and arena soccer. 

I think the MISL knew this even back then, but for whatever reasons were never able to market their clubs very well. Similar to what the NHL went through up until the 1980s or so and a big reason why it took them forever to expand and become a big league. Which they didn’t do until the early 1970s. But the NHL figured it out and almost forty-years later the MISL is still struggling just to survive. 

But having successful clubs in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, to go along with their traditionally strong markets would help a lot with that.