Oxford Union: Jeremy Corbyn- 'Socialism Does Work'

Source:Oxford Union- UK Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Jeremy Corbyn addresses the issue of healthcare saying that the socialist and communist thinkers of the 19th Century had a vision that healthcare should be available to all people, this had lead to the NHS today and is something we should be proud of. He concludes by saying the chamber should vote in favour of equality. 

Filmed on Thursday 28th November 2013

MOTION: This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.

RESULT: Motion Defeated." 

From the Oxford Union

Wow! My first opportunity to blog about Jeremy Corbyn, who may end up being the next Leader of the Opposition in Britain next month. I’m really only interested in democratic socialism when it comes to socialism. Marxism, I see as another ideology and an extreme form of statism as it relates to social, economic and political policy. 

Democratic Socialists, are not Marxists, otherwise they would be Marxists. And when you think of socialism, you should think of the European Union, especially the Anglo-Saxon states like Britain and look at the Nordic states in Scandinavia. When you think of Marxism, look at the old Soviet Union. And look at North Korea today.

For me at least, it’s not a question of whether socialism works, not, but how far you go with it. How much do you want centralized with the national government. With the state, or provincial government’s doing less, as well as the local government’s and private sector doing less. Because every developed democratic country in the world has a level of socialism in their national government at least. 

Democratic socialism, is really about having a big welfare state and big centralized national government, to see to it that no one in society has to go without. And that the central government is responsible for a lot of the basic human services in life. But that the welfare state is essentially funded by a large private sector. Yes, capitalism and private enterprise.

This debate is not whether you should have a command and control Marxist state-owned economy. Or do you want the entire economy to be left in the hands of the private sector. With government only being left with national security, foreign policy, national reserve and law enforcement. 

This is a debate about how much do you want government doing for the people. How big you want the central state to be versus the state/provincial government’s, local government’s and private sector. But that there is a private sector, because even Democratic Socialists know that Marxism doesn’t work. If it did, the Soviet Union would still be in business today. Cuba, wouldn’t have started privatizing parts of their economy and North Korea, wouldn’t be the hell hole that it is.

The Washington Monthly: Martin Longman- 'White House Heroin Initiative is a Start'

Source:Washington Monthly- Everyone should say no to heroin. But they shouldn't be in prison for saying yes to heroin.

Source:The New Democrat

"I’m glad the White House is finally moving on the heroin/opioid epidemic in this country, and I think what they’re going to announce tomorrow morning is a good start, for the most part. What I think is needed, however, is much more public input, particularly from folks who are on the ground trying not just to interdict the trade in opioids, but from the ones who are taking responsibility for trying to help people kick and keep addicts alive."

From Washington Monthly

"EDGARTOWN, Mass. (AP) -- The White House is launching a new  million initiative to combat heroin use and trafficking of the drug, particularly in states along the East Coast. About half of the money will fund a program to link public health and law enforcement agencies, with the goal of prioritizing treatment for drug users over punishments. Monday's announcement comes amid a spike in heroin use and deaths in the United States. The rise in heroin use has become a frequent topic in the 2016 presidential campaign. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton recently held a forum in New Hampshire on drug addiction, an issue she said voters have been frequently raising as she's campaigned in the early voting state."

Source:Local 12- Chief Bill Kramer, of the Norwood Police.

From Local 12

This is really something that we should’ve been doing since the so-called War on Drugs started in 1971. But then had we of done that, then maybe the War on Drugs is never started. Wait, that would’ve actually been a great thing. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of people we wouldn’t have in prison today. And instead of collecting tax dollars, instead they’re getting cleaned and paying into the system instead. What I’m getting at is not a question of whether this would be a good idea or not. That is treating non-drug selling drug offenders as addicts and putting them in rehab instead of jail. But the question is like any government initiative especially when budgets are tight, is how you pay for it.

Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which I believe I’ve made clear on this blog. But it does have at least three major shortfalls. Not creating a public option for Medicare. So non-seniors, could pay into Medicare along with their employers and use that as their health insurance. And it would have been their option, not mandate. Dealing with mental health care and not fulling paying for our mental health care system in this country. Had we done that, I believe we would have fewer shootings today. Because those shooters would have been in a mental hospital getting the help that they need. And the other has to do with drug rehab and the War on Drugs.

You put drug addicts into rehab and people who are caught in possession of heroin, cocaine, or meth, in halfway houses, if they’re not addicts instead of jail, or prison and same thing with small time drug dealers, we would have a mentally and physically healthier country. We would also have a hell of a lot fewer people in the criminal justice system. Instead they would be in the health care system as it as to do with drug abuse. And abusing alcohol, tobacco and legal medications, is also abusing drugs. Only you don’t go to jail for abusing those drugs if that’s all you’re doing. But you do make a mess of your life that others may have to pay for.

I think the way we finance drug rehab in America, is the same way we could finance mental health. Which is though the health insurance system both private and public. Require all public and private health insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, to cover mental health and drug rehab. I would even be happy raise the payroll tax and cut the corporate tax to pay for this. So people don’t lose other benefits as a result. And tell illegal drug users, that they’re going to rehab instead of jail. And they successfully complete the program. They won’t get a criminal record as a result. Instead of treating essentially mental patients, which addicts are in a way, like felons.

Public Domain Footage: Robert F. Kennedy Speech at Columbia University (1964)

Source:Public Domain Footage- Robert F. Kennedy running for U.S. Senate in 1964.

Source:The New Democrat

Robert F. Kennedy, running for U.S. Senate in 1964 and not to replace one of his brothers in Massachusetts, but to run for Senate in New York. A great opportunity for Bobby Kennedy as well in 1964. Because Senator Ken Keating, from New York wasn’t very popular in New York. President Lyndon Johnson, was going to win New York in a landslide. And here is where Bobby Kennedy, had an opportunity to jump on Lyndon’s coattails and take a seat in the U.S. Senate in the following Congress.

I believe Kennedy, answered the carpetbagger question very well. Of course with his Irish-Boston accent, he didn’t sound very New York. Either from New York City, or upstate like in Buffalo, or some place. But he grew up in New York City and spent most of his professional career in Washington and had a home in New York. This is not like Hillary Clinton, who grew up in Chicago and spent a lot of her professional career in Arkansas with her husband and then a New York Senate seat opens up in 2000 and she decides she’s going to be the next U.S. Senator from New York. A state where she didn’t have any roots in going in.

I think Bobby Kennedy, answered the presidential question very well to. You can’t run for both President and U.S. Senate at the same time. At least in most states and that would be borderline impossible to do so before you’re actually in the Senate. Kennedy, was clearly a Senate candidate in 1964 for New York. So that was the seat and race he was focused on. And again in 1964, LBJ looked like he would probably run for reelection in 1968 and perhaps even be popular. RFK and LBJ, were both Democrats. So as RFK said, 1972 eight years after 1964 would’ve been the earliest that he could run for president.

Bobby Kennedy’s politics, might have changed a bit from 1964 to 1967-68. But that had to do with the Vietnam War and growing poverty and racial division in America in the late 1960s. But in 1964, I believe RFK was still an establishment Center-Left Liberal Democrat like his brother Jack. And you could argue that he moved left from that by 1967. But in 1964 he was running for U.S. Senate essentially to continue the vision and goals of President Kennedy. Expanding freedom and opportunity to all Americans and dealing with civil rights, equal rights and equality of opportunity for the whole country.

TIME Magazine: Charlotte Alter: Sex Buyers: Why Cops Across the U.S. Target Men Who Buy Prostitutes

Source:Time Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

I guess what Cook County, Illinois is doing by arresting johns, that is men who pay prostitutes for sex, is better than arresting both johns and the prostitutes. And getting the prostitutes off the streets and giving them opportunities to improve their lives by getting out of prostitution and staying out of jail. The problem, is you’re still arresting johns. And for what, paying women for doing their job. Which is to give johns a good time and even sex. You’re arresting john for participating in a consensual act. And even if the consensual act is dangerous, its still consensual. Between two parties.

Illegal and criminal, are two different things at least to me. Doing something illegal means you’re breaking the law. You ran a red light, parked in a handicapped zone, failed to signal a turn and there are many other examples. But criminal, is when you intentionally hurt someone and do something that is not only illegal, but its criminal. You stole someone’s money, you beat an innocent person up, you raped someone, you murdered someone and you can go down the line. Good reasons why these acts are not just illegal, but criminal as well.

Prostitution, of course is illegal in most places and always has, but we’re talking about something where two agreeing parties agreed to do this with each other. And where the prostitute makes money from this simply by doing her job. And I understand everything about the dangers that come with the prostitution business is, which is exactly what it is a business. But you can say that about a lot other business’s that are legal in many places. Pro sports, gambling, private detective work, bounty hunting, stunt work and even acting. And yet these business’s are made as safe as they possibly can legal and otherwise through regulation. These industries actually regulate themselves.

Is prostitution the sole reason why we have two-million people in the criminal justice system in America as offenders? Of course not, but a big reason why we have so many convicted offenders in our system is because we arrest and lock people up who haven’t hurt anyone. In many cases these offenders are in jail, or prison for committing acts that are technically illegal and dangerous. Prostitution, is obviously one of those business’s. It’s not the oldest profession in the world for nothing. So the question is how best to deal with that. Locking people up for it has not worked. So the question for me at least are what are the alternatives. And I go to regulation and taxation to make a business that is not going anywhere as safe as possible.

Ray Red Spider: 'Why Vote Bernie?'

Source:Ray Red Spider- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a Senate hearing on health care systems around the world." 

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

From Senator Bernie Sanders

I saw a blog post with the link to that blog up here, arguing about why people should vote for Bernie Sanders for president. The case being that he wants to give Americans all of these free services. And I’ve made this point before on my blog, but anytime a politician especially someone from the Left, especially Far-Left says: “Vote for me and I’ll give you all of these free services.” your question should be how are you going to pay for all of these free services?

Government’s aren’t business’s, or any other private organization. They get their money by taking money from their people, their taxpayers. And then give that money back in public services. Schools, roads, military, law enforcement, etc. At least that is all developed countries fund their government’s. So when Bernie Sanders, or any other so-called Progressive (Social Democratic candidate in, realty says) they’ll give free public services, they’re either lying, or simply don’t know better.

Anyone in the world who pays taxes knows that government is not free, including Socialists, because they know they’re giving up some of their income to fund the government. Not out of charity, or generosity. 

Generally speaking people expect their taxes to pay for infrastructure, education, even if it is not for their kids, because their kids go to private schools, law enforcement, national security, social insurance for people who fall on hard times, etc. 

For Bernie Sanders and other Socialists  or so-called Progressives who are running for office would serve their own movement’s and people well, if they were simply more frank and accurate with what they say government can do for people and how it would be paid for.

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.

Reverb Press: Akira Watts- 'The Greatest Threat To Bernie Sanders Is His Supporters: Bernie Sanders'

Source:Reverb Press- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) the moderate of the New-Left?

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sanders was supposed to address a crowd of several thousand in Seattle

But Black Lives Matter protesters burst onstage in Westlake Park

They were offered chance to speak after Sanders, but demanded to go first

Held silence for Michael Brown, and spent total of 20 minutes behind mic

Sanders tried to come back on and speak, but couldn't and gave up

Later said event was 'unfortunate' as he is sympathetic to their cause." 

Source:Lovelyti TV- Socialist Bernie Sanders, meets African-American Nationalists.

From Lovelyti TV

Keep in mind, Senator Bernie Sanders, now Democratic presidential candidate, is a self-described Democratic Socialist. Not the only Democratic Socialist in Congress, but the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress. So if he’s a moderate in comparison to his supporters, what would his supporters be? Marxists, Communists, welfare statists, nanny statists, political correctness warriors, a combination of all of those things? If any of those labels are your answer, or more than one of those labels are your answers, you would be right.

Bernie Sanders, like capitalism, he likes private enterprise, he supports property rights, he’s a fan of the U.S. Constitution and even Bill of Rights. He likes our military, he’s one of the biggest supports of our military veterans and he’s not a pacifist. I believe he voted for the Afghan War when he was in the U.S. House in 2001. He wants a bigger Federal Government especially as it relates to the economy and more social insurance programs and more investment in those programs. But he’s not looking to replace the states and localities and our federalist system with a unitarian superstate central government. So when he says America should be more like Sweden, not in every area.

Of all of those things that I listed that Bernie supports, a good deal of his followers who in many cases are coming over from the Green Party and Democratic Socialist Party, as well as the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, all have issues with several if not all of those functions of the U.S. Government and those parts of the U.S. Constitution and parts of our capitalist and private enterprise economic system. Bernie, wants to reform our Federal Government and economic system. He’s not looking to destroy it and create a new one. And not only that, the only constitutional amendment that he’s offered is overturning Citizens United. And moving to public financing of all Federal campaigns.

I believe the way to look at Bernie Sanders, is from a Democratic Socialist point of view. But take Sweden’s socialist economic system with the huge welfare state, funded by a private enterprise system. But then also add the Canadian federal form of government. Generous welfare state, but where the provinces and localities have a good deal of responsibility and autonomy over their own domestic affairs. Whereas his supporters, would probably scrap the U.S. Constitution, write a new one, or not bother replacing it. Scrap Congress, or at least the upper chamber the Senate and move to a unitarian parliamentary form of government. Where the House of Representatives picks our head of state.

As a Liberal who believes in, well liberalism and not socialism that is disguised as liberalism, I do not see Bernie Sanders as a threat and certainly not dangerous, even though he’s Democratic Socialist. He’s doing very well now, but the weather is still hot and perhaps even in New England.

One, most of the primaries and caucus’ will be held next year when the weather is cold.

Two, even if somehow he wins the Democratic nomination and becomes president, he’ll be dealing with Congressional Republicans that most likely will still control the House of Representatives. So he won’t get a lot of what he wants to accomplished done.

But three, again he’s not looking to blowup the system and completely change the American form of government. But reform certain areas and reform certain parts of the American private enterprise system. His supporters, are a different story.