The Lizard King: The Doors Live in London (1968)

Source:The Lizard King- Jim Morrison & The Doors: Live in London (1968)

Source:The Daily Journal

At least the early part of this concert sounds like the Oliver Stone version of The Doors from 1991 with Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison. With The Lizard King drunk and wasted and barely being able to stand up and move around without losing his balance. And giving an awful performance in Miami, Florida and finally getting frustrated and starts cursing at the audience. Which is a true story and one of the few things that the Oliver Stone movie portrayed accurately. The New Haven concert would be another one.

The actual Live in London concert was very good and you get to Jim Morrison and The Doors (as I call them) at their best. With The Lizard King at his best in his classic rock and roll uniform the black leather suit, concho belt and cowboy boots that he put on the rock and roll map himself. Which is about an hour long that I have on DVD. They play everything and Morrison is brilliant on the vocals and very entertaining as well.

CBS News: See it Now: Edward R. Murrow On Senator Joe McCarthy (1954)

Source:The New Democrat

This was not commentary on Edward R. Murrow's part, but Ed Murrow accurately describing the dangerous actions of Senator Joe McCarthy who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communists in Government. Not the exact title, but close enough and what Murrow was doing was explaining how dangerous this type of fascism on the Senator's part was to our American values of Freedom of Assembly and Speech. That Americans shouldn't be judged by who we associate with, or what we think, but by how live our lives as Americans.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: Pat Buchanan: 'The Greatest Comeback'

Source:Russia Today- author Patrick J. Buchanan talking to Thom Hartmann, about his book about Richard M. Nixon.

Source:The New Democrat

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020."

From Wikipedia 

"Patrick J. Buchanan, The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority talks to Thom." 

From Russia Today 

"Legendary political commentator and New York Times best selling author Pat Buchanan came to the Richard Nixon Library on July 21 to discuss his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” 

Source:Nixon Foundation- author Patrick J. Buchanan, talking about his book about President Richard M. Nixon.

From the Nixon Foundation

I actually agree with Pat Buchanan over Thom Hartmann on this. And I disagree with Thom Hartmann on a lot because he is so far out in left field that it would be impossible to hit a home run out at that ballpark at least to left field. You would need a jet plane to fly the baseball and drop it over the wall at that ballpark. 

I agree with Pat Buchanan as much as it snows in Los Angeles. Because he is so far to the right that he makes the Islamic theocrats in Iran look moderate. But I probably agree with Hartmann more often than Buchanan on most civil liberties issues like the War on Drugs.

And this is why I agree with Buchanan here, because as much as the far-left likes to paint Richard Nixon as some type of right-wing authoritarian with the illegal bugging and other criminal activities inside of the White House, Dick Nixon was actually pretty moderate or progressive even as it related to civil rights issues. And even consumer and workers protections is it related to the environment and civil rights. 

As Mr. Buchanan said Mr. Nixon was way ahead of the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party on civil and equal rights and supported all of the civil rights bills of the 1950s and 60s. And even supported affirmative action in the 1970s.

RJ Eskow: Time to Nationalize Big Tech Companies?

Source:The New Democrat

The death nale and actual fall of liberalism once you start talking about nationalizing the media. Because there is nothing liberal about state-control and monopoly of how the people get their media and other information. You have to know if you don't already that Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are liberal values and ideas. Its authoritarians either far-left like in Cuba and Venezuela, or the far-right in the Middle East that want to control the media. So they can control what their people hear and not get hurt by that information.

I understand the power of big media especially once it becomes too big and too powerful and starts looking like a monopoly. But that is what anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws are for. Once a company becomes too big as far as how much control they have over the private market the answer is to break them up. The answer is competition, not going from a private monopoly and creating some new state monopoly where now the people in official power can control how we get our information. And even protecting themselves from negative information that can hurt them.

Crash Course: John Green: The 1960s in America: Crash Course US History

Source:The New Democrat

It would be impossible to write out and cover the entire 1960s decade in one blog post. For one I wasn't born in the decade and didn't live in the decade at any point. I was born in 1975 which makes feel a little better because I don't seem as old. So everything I know about the 1960s is what I've read, people who lived though the decade that I've talked to and movies and documentaries that I've seen about the decade. Another reason would be that it was simply such and important and incredible decade that I simply couldn't cover it in one post. Unless I wanted to spend the rest of my life on it.

But what I can give you in even one blog post is a summary of the highlights and lowlights of this monumental decade. A decade that saw so much horrible violence with a U.S. President being assassinated and just five years after that in 1968 the greatest leader we've ever had when it comes to equal constitutional rights Dr. Martin King being assassinated as well. And of course a U.S. Senator running for president who wanted to end the horrible Vietnam War which I'll get into later being assassinated as well.

If you think that is too much horror for one decade, take a breath because there is plenty more. The race riots having to do with poverty, racism and how police mistreated African-Americans especially in low-income communities. And of course having to do with the assassinations of Dr. King and counter-violence to the violence that was brought down on African-Americans and others who were simply marching for their freedom and constitutional rights. And of course the Vietnam War where hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed for fighting someone else's war.

But if I have you now in a depression, this might get you out of it. The 1960s was a great decade of social liberalization. Which is another away of saying social liberation. Notice how liberalization, liberation and liberal all sound similar. And sound nothing like socialist or collectivist or statist or paternalistic or communitarian. The 1960s was a great decade of social liberalization for people of all races, ethnicities, genders and even sexualities. A decade where  more Americans than ever at least up to that point now felt the freedom to be individuals and Americans and live their own lives the way they wanted to.

Now of course social liberalization meaning social freedom has its limits when it doesn't come with responsibility. Which is what the right-wing especially the religious-right who fought back starting in the late 1960s and the 1970s and Tea Party of the late 1960s and 1970s what Richard Nixon called the 'Silent Majority' have gone out of their way to point out. But this was a decade where millions of Americans now felt the freedom to be themselves and live their own individual lives. And didn't feel the need to live the way their parents or grandparents lived.

But the 1960s was a decade thanks to the Baby Boomers and the hippy movement where all sorts of Americans including women, Gays, African-Americans, Latin-Americans and others now felt the freedom to be themselves. And no longer felt the need to have to live in some social box that was created by their parents and grandparents and the right-wing in America about what it means to be a real American. Because now they felt the freedom to make those decisions for themselves.

The Nation: Lee Fang: 'The Real Reason Why Pot is Still Illegal'

Source:The New Democrat

Lee Fang is right about the reason he gave as why marijuana is illegal in America. It's called the prescription drug industry that produces drugs that are very addictive and once addictive they become dangerous. Pain killers comes to mind very quickly and so does steroids. And I thought his example about former U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy where Representative Kennedy now a marijuana prohibition advocate saying that "there are extremists pushing for legalization of marijuana". Give me a break, the only thing that is extreme is marijuana prohibition and the broader War on Drugs which I'll get to later.

But the prescription drug industry and their lobbyists and advocates are just the beginning when it comes to marijuana prohibition in America. Here are several more real reasons just off the top of my head. The alcohol and tobacco industries, the Prison Industrial Complex with includes both the private prison industry and construction companies that build public prisons in America. Who would all lose a hell of a lot of money if marijuana were to be legalized.

Think about it young Americans especially lets say the X and Y generations overwhelmingly prefer marijuana over alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana doesn't make them feel as bad if bad at all. And it doesn't hurt their lungs as much, or make their clothes smell. Or give them god-awful migraine headaches from alcohol hangovers. You legalize marijuana and that would cost all of these industries that are opposed to marijuana legalization and champions of the broader War on Drugs a hell of a lot of money.

But that is just alcohol and tobacco. How about the Prison Industrial Complex and the loss of money they would have to deal with. Think about it you legalize marijuana and now we are sending less people to prison each year over it as a result. And would have less need for prisons and cells because we would have fewer prisoners as a result. Prescription drugs are big backers of marijuana prohibition and the broader War on Drugs and I'm not arguing that they aren't. But they have other partners who are fighting marijuana prohibition as well that are just resourceful if not more.

The Nation: William Greider: What Does the Democratic Party Believe in?

Source:The New Democrat

The Democratic Party today and throughout its history perhaps even through the 19th Century has always been a party of parties or political and ideological factions. It is called the Democratic Party for a very good reason. Because Democrats believe in democracy whether they are big D Democrats meaning registered Democrats, or small d Democrats who aren't registered with the Democratic Party. That means Democrats who believe in democracy, but that doesn't mean we all share the same political ideology, because obviously we don't.

We are not called the Liberal Party, even though we obviously have a liberal faction that I'm proud to be a member of. We are not called the Progressive Party even though we have a progressive faction. We are not called the Centrist Party even though we have a small but centrist faction in the party. We are not called the Conservative Party obviously and we pretty much no longer have a conservative faction even though really up until the 1980s or so we did have one.

The Democratic Party is not a party with one governing political philosophy, but a party that is made up of people who share the same values and goals. Generally as it relates to the economy and to a certain extent as it relates to social issues. But we don't share the same policies in how to accomplish the goals we share. Which was obvious during President Obama's first term and still is obvious today. And the Democratic Party works when we are able to incorporate the best from all of our factions into policies and throws out the garbage from the fringe. To give voters a reason to vote for Democrats.

The Democratic Party has a liberal faction that I call New Democrats which I'm one. That believes in both personal and economic freedom and a high degree of both. That wants all Americans to have a good shot at being successful in life so they don't need all of those government interventions and programs to survive that the Bill Greider's of the world believe we should spend a lot more on. And New Democrats tend to very pro-choice as well and not just as it relates to abortion, but a whole range of personal issues.

We have a FDR New Deal Progressive faction as you see in Congress today as well with Senator's Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Tom Harkin in the Senate. and Representative's George Miller, Henry Waxman and others in the House. They tend to agree with Liberals on social issues, but as it relates to women's issues they tend to believe that not only should women have choice, but that others should have to pay for those choices as well.

Progressives tend to be a bit more paternalistic when it comes to social issues like alcohol, tobacco, gambling and even today with junk food, soft drinks and even marijuana. And want government to be much more involved in the economy when it comes to the safety net. But believe that people should have the opportunity to be successful on their own with a good education.  And that the public safety net can be used to empower people at the bottom to move up.

Then we have the what I call Social Democrats (to be nice) in the Democratic Party what I call the Bernie Sanders faction that The Nation Magazine is part of. That believe "the New Deal and Great Society are out of date. And that the American form of government and even Constitution are out of date. That our federalist form of government with the three layers are out of date. That instead of having a country that is based so much on constitutional law and individual rights that we should move to a more collectivist social democratic form of government. Where more power is centralized with the central government for the benefit of the people's welfare. And we are run primarily if not exclusively on majoritarian rule. Instead of being run by the Constitution as is common in Europe".

So when someone says Democratic Party I almost say which one. Because if the party ever did break up you would see several fairly large parties replace it all having different names. And one says they are a Democrat I almost want to ask them what kind of Democrat are you? Because again we have four different factions all having enough power to at least get elected to Congress and having a major voice inside of the party.