The American Prospect: Julian E. Zelizer- When Progressives Were Organized

Source:The American Prospect- "Progressives seeking a model for an effective Congress could learn from the nearly forgotten history of the Democratic Study Group." From the American Prospect.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, one of Speaker Newt Gingrich's earliest moves was to end the public funding for the Democratic Study Group (DSG), a caucus of liberal Democrats that had been created in 1959. It was one of Gingrich's shrewdest maneuvers. As Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, a staunch conservative then and now, wrote in an internal memo, "The demise of the DSG severely damages the power structure of the House Democrats."

Roberts was right. The DSG is almost forgotten today, but its history suggests lessons for the current generation of Democrats. Since 1994, congressional liberals have failed to replicate a powerful, independent organization like the Democratic Study Group. They have been dependent on a House leadership that is sometimes but not always sympathetic to their goals. The closest thing to a DSG, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been a pale imitation of its predecessor, a fragile informal coalition that has lacked the same kind of leadership, money, publications, communications strategy, or clout. As liberals prepare for the start of the 114th Congress and hope for stronger Democratic returns in 2016, they would benefit from looking back at the history of the DSG to see just how much a vibrant and robust caucus can offer."  

From The American Prospect 

"FDR introduced a record number of pieces of legislation immediately after being elected during Great Depression. FDR signed the Emergency Banking Act and the Glass-Steagall Act which prohibited the merger of commercial and investment banks in response to the 1933 bank panic. FDR also created the Civilian Conservation Corps which put 250,000 unemployed to work. FDR also signed into law new regulatory powers to the Federal Trade Commission and created the Security and Exchange Commission to regulate Wall Street. $3.3 billion dollars was appropriated to the Public Works Administration to stimulate the economy and create the largest government-owned industrial enterprise in American history -- the Tennessee Valley Authority which built dams and power stations, controlled floods, and modernized agriculture and home conditions in the poverty-stricken Tennessee Valley. FDR promised to repeal prohibition in his campaign for Pres, and he did, generating new tax revenue to help pay for increase in gov spending. In June 1933 Roosevelt restored $50 million in pension payments, and Congress added another $46 million more. After the 1934 Congressional elections, which gave Roosevelt large majorities in both houses, there was a fresh surge of New Deal legislation. These measures included the Works Progress Administration which set up a national relief agency that employed 2 million people. FDR signed the National Labor Relations Act which established for the first time in American history the rights of workers to organize unions and participate in strikes. At the height of WPA employment in 1938, unemployment was down from 20.6% in 1933 to only 12.5%. Total employment during Roosevelt's term expanded by an astonishing 18.31 million jobs! By 1944, FDR and the American people were so confident in his policies, he had the audacity to propose a Second Bill of Rights in his State Of The Union Address." 

Source:Right-Wing Watch- our Founding Fathers or just actors playing? You be the judge. LOL

From Right-Wing Watch

The Democratic Study Group that Julian Zelizer mentioned, was a coalition of FDR/LBJ Progressive Democrats who gave America the New Deal, Great Society and the civil rights laws of the 1960s. They created public social safety net in America. Safety net being the key here, because it is one thing that makes America very different from let's say Scandinavia economically. 

Americans don’t expect government to take care of them indefinitely, but to help us when we need it. That is why it’s called a safety net and social insurance. You collect your insurance when you need it. But you don’t use it to pay your bills for the rest of your life unless you are disabled or retired. The Progressives of that era understood that and also didn’t want Americans thinking they could just live off of government indefinitely.

Today’s so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) are much further left than Progressives of the past.. They’ve gone from Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Kennedy (real Progressives) all the way over to the Dennis Kucinich’s, Ralph Nader’s Bernie Sanders, and yes, Bob Kuttner’s of the world who expect government to take care of people in general. Instead of being there for people when they need economic assistance and empowering people who are down to get up on their own feet. 

The reason why the Democratic Study Group had real clout in Congress in the 1950s and 60s is because they were mainstream in America and tended to believe in things that Americans tend to believe when it comes to the economy. Social insurance for people who need it, infrastructure and quality education for all. So everyone could live in freedom and not need government to take care of them.

The Democratic Study Group and the old The New Republic have been replaced by the New-Left (Socialists and Communists) New Republic, The Nation, AlterNet, TruthOut, and yes The American Prospect and other Far-Left social democratic publications and political activist groups. Who represent very few Americans because they tend to be on the fringe in America and need their readers and followers to give them financial contributions just to stay in business. Because they have so little in advertising revenue. I know this from personal experience being on the email list of all of these publications to see how far left the Far-Left is today. 

FDR/LBJ Progressives are still around today: Senator Sherrod Brown might be their best and leading spokesperson in Congress today. But unfortunately they’re being shouted down by MSNBC and those publications that I mentioned earlier.

Vox: Opinion: Amanda Taub: "The Truth About Political Correctness is That it Doesn't Exist": Really?

Vox: Opinion: Amanda Taub: The Truth About Political Correctness is That it Does Not Exist 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

So when Rush Limbaugh calls a young women a slut a few years ago and people on the Far-Left protest and try to get Rush fired because they believe slut is offensive and politically incorrect, that didn’t happen? Or when campus, leftists lets say to be nice try to prevent Anne Coulter from speaking at their college because of offensive remarks she’s made about minorities Latin immigrants, gays and go down the list, she’s serial offender, that didn’t happen either?

Or go up to last year and what Bill Maher who just happens to be a hard-core Atheist that the Far-Left use to love, but he has the balls to criticize Islam, the Far-Left attacks him on Twitter and other places and call him a racist. And the leftists at Berkley try to prevent him from speaking at their state university, by the way, but in Amanda Taub’s world that didn’t happen either? Please, let’s be adults here and not debate whether or not political correctness exist or not. And at the same time not debate whether water is wet or not. And have a real debate about the merits and weakness’ of it instead and have an adult conversation.

Lets also be real about what it is as well, even if the truth may tend to offend the supporters of it. Which is one thing that free speech is about. The right to not only express yourself, but also the right to tell the truth even if it may offend. The fringe version of political correctness is a form of fascism. “I not only disagree with you, but find your point of view hateful and offensive to the point that you don’t have a right to speak in my world. And I’m going to do whatever I can to shut you up”. That is exactly what political correctness is when it comes from the Far-Right and elements of the Tea Party that want to define what it means to be real American. And the Far-Left that wants to shut people up who they find offensive.

Jonathan Chait: Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

Source:New York Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat. 

If you are familiar with my pieces about Bill Maher and how the Far-Left attacked him over his comments on Islam back in September and October, you know I view political correctness as not just illiberal, or how I prefer to put it anti-liberal because that is what this is, you know I’m not a fan of political correctness. Because it is a form of fascism, leftist fascism sure, but the Right doesn’t have a monopoly on fascism in America or anywhere else in the world. There’s nothing liberal about trying to shut down the opposition because you disagree with them. Or they offend you, or offend people you care about.

Liberalism was built around the hard-core individual rights of Freedom of Speech and Assembly, Freedom of Movement and Freedom of Choice. Not built around a superstate that would block language that may attend to offend the superstate or offend some of the people. The Wall Street Journal late last week or earlier this week published an editorial questioning whether or not Jonathan Chait is a Liberal or not because of his stance against political correctness. I questioned his credentials as a Liberal two-years ago because of all of his big government social democratic leanings that he has expressed in The New Republic. But now seeing him question political correctness and whether it is a good thing now, gives me a new respect for him.

The way the Far-Left attacked Bill Maher who just the day before he criticized Islam on his show and saw him as one of their heroes or God’s even, (even though the Far-Left tends to be Atheist) supplies all the evidence that people who far to the Left aren’t very liberal at all. Except for perhaps when it comes to some civil liberties, even though they are pretty weak when it comes to free speech. And the way they are probably going to go after Jon Chait for the same reasons shows you that people who are that radical on the Left, aren’t very liberal at least when it comes to speech. But leftist fascists who have the goal of shutting down the political opposition.

Dark Documentaries: Video: True Crime With Aphrodite Jones: OJ Simpson 2010

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I can’t say that I’m shocked about what happened to O.J. Simpson post 1997 wrongful death civil case against him that he lost and of course he literally getting away with murder in 1995. Actually not what happened to him, but what he did to himself, but I’m certainly surprised by it.

O.J. will never get mistaken for a genius or for the twin of a genius, perhaps the evil twin of a genius. But I would have to think he was smart enough to at least have people around him who were smart enough to tell him, “look O.J., you literally just got way with murder here. Even with the 1997 judgement against you, you still have the resources to live the rest of your life fairly comfortably. Don’t blow it! And stay out of trouble and enjoy the rest of your live as a free man”. O.J. never figured that out and literally pushed his luck.

The message O.J. got was, “I just got away with murder here! I must be a God or something, lets see what else I can get away with!” Again we’re not talking about a genius here or someone who would be confused as the twin of a genius. And instead figures what the hell and starts his own criminal career around 2006 or so and is apparently broke and decides he’ll steal to support himself. Dumb narcissistic people do dumb things, because they believe they are either untouchable, or don’t deserved to be touched, or a combination of both. And what happened to O.J. is that he finally got caught in 2007. And is now doing the time in prison in Nevada that he should be doing in California for the 1994 double homicide.

CBS News: Person to Person Classic: JFK & Jacqueline

Source:CBS News-

Source:The New Democrat

The Kennedy’s had just been married by this point in 1953. John Kennedy was about halfway through his first term as a U.S. Senate and already contemplating running for President. And had even considered being Adlai Stephenson’s Vice Presidential nominee in 1956. And this is going to sound hard, but Jack Kennedy was politically smart enough to know that he wasn’t going to get elected President as a bachelor. Especially as a bachelor with a reputation as a playboy. That is where Jackie comes in to make it look like Jack has settled down with one women and ready to start a family. Not saying Jack didn’t love Jackie, but that was not his primary motive for marrying her. He wanted to run for and be elected President in 1960 and the way to do that back then and still today is at the very least be seen as a family man. With a wife and kids and be perceived as loving both.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: The Lonely Hours (1963) Starring Gena Rowlands

Source:IMDB- Hollywood Goddess Gena Rowlands guest-starring on The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, in 1963.

Source:The New Democrat

"A mother of three notices that her baby son fascinates the lady renting a room in her home.

When 'Vera Brandon' (Nancy Kelly) returns to the room she rented as Mrs. JA Williams, there's a nameplate on the door that indicates the same. However, when she opens the door to enter the room, the nameplate is no longer there.

The evil or twisted nanny scheme has already been told many times on small and big screen but it still is enjoying to watch anyway. Here, performances are brilliant and convincing too. The particularity, everyone has noticed, is that there is no man at all in the cast, only the director Jack Smight and the baby Michael. ha ha ha The kind of AH H that I like, because unusual." 

From IMDB

There was once a YouTube video with the whole Lonely Hours episode, which is where this photo is from. But not one video is currently available online right now.

Source:Jennifer Morrison- Hollywood Goddess Gena Rowlands guess-starring on The Alfred Hitchcock Hour in 1963.

The Lonely Hours is about a couple that has a spare room to rent. Even though we never see the husband in this show. But this couple with Gena Rowlands playing the wife have three kids together. A woman who sees their ad in the paper (I guess played by Nancy Kelly) stops by to rent the room at the Henderson’s house. She also ends up becoming the kids babysitter, even though Mrs. Henderson (played by Gena Rowlands) has done no research on the woman who is renting her bedroom. And has no idea who she is, about her history and what she’s doing there. I guess that's what life was like before the Internet.

Nancy Kelly plays a very lonely woman who almost falls in love with the Henderson baby. Sounds strange but loves this baby so much that she now believes the baby is actually hers and even kidnaps the baby. And that is what Mrs. Henderson finally wakes up and realizes that the new woman is not right and something really bad is going and sets out find her and get her baby back. 

Gena Rowlands not only looks like a goddess on this show with her hot, baby-face looks and tall sexy body, but she’s also a hell of an actress and does a great job of playing the loving mother protecting her family from a sick, dangerous ,woman.

New Detectives: Trial of The Century

Source:The New Democrat

I have to believe that looking at the evidence from the outside in the O.J. Simpson case, the case against O.J. Simpson that the man has to be guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. I think commonsense has to tell you that especially the fact that O.J.’s blood is all over the crime scene. A holy bloody river, game, set, match at least as far as I’m concern. I mean if I’m a prosecutor or a police detective or sergeant and you forget about all the side stories in this case, I don’t think I could dream of a better case to have.

And having said all that with perfect case presented to the Los Angeles Police Department and District Attorney’s Office, they still managed to screw it up. But putting that all aside, if I’m on that jury and even with Mark Furhman garbage in the case that makes him look like he should have no business in law enforcement, except as a defendant, just based on the evidence in front of me I would have to think that O.J. is probably guilty here. Otherwise what is all of O.J.’s blood doing at the crime scene.

One of the best cases possible that you could possibly dream of, at least as far as the evidence. And the jury in that case still screwed it up and that is assuming that they actually went into the case with an open mind and didn’t decide well before that they weren’t going to vote guilty regardless. And just argue that Detective Furhman planted all the evidence against O.J. Including his blood, which would be borderline impossible to imagine. I mean Furhman would’ve had to of stabbed O.J. over and over to get all of that blood out of him.