Plato Shrugs: The Suspension of Disbelief: Bernie Sanders as President

Source:Plato Shrugs-

Source:The Daily Review

I disagree with the blogger who wrote this piece over at Plato Shrugs on two key points. And I think we probably agree on the rest. But Bernie Sanders, is not the ‘liberal Ron Paul’. Bernie, is the Democratic version of Rick Santorum. Rick, being the Far-Right Big Government Neoconservative Republican, who even flirted with the idea of outlawing gambling from the Federal level. To go along with outlawing pornography and same-sex marriage in 2012. Bernie, might be liberal compared with Rick, but who isn’t. That would be like saying a politician is consistent compared with Mitt Romney. Or someone is short compared Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or Yao Ming. You know, who isn’t. You might have to send out a search party to find anyone who isn’t consistent, or short compared with these people.

Rick Santorum, represents the Far-Right fringe of the Republican Party. The Christian-Right and Neoconservative wing of that party. Bernie Sanders, represents the Far-Left Socialist wing of the Democratic Party. That wants to transform this Center-Left party that I’m proud to be a member of, into the Democratic Socialist Party. Where what’s mine and what’s yours, is no longer mine and yours, but now subjected to our nightmare of an Uncle Sam. To decide for everyone what we should have and be forced to give up. And I’m talking about money here and not physical property. Because Bernie is not a Communist but a Democratic Socialist who wants a big centralized national government. To go along with a highly taxed and regulated private sector.

I also disagree with Plato about Bernie Sanders having no shot and even being a long shot to win the Democratic nomination. Bernie, has been an underdog his whole life starting with being the son of poor Jewish-European immigrants in 1940s New York. And then making it all the way through college in the 1960s and being part of the civil rights movement. To becoming Mayor of Burlington, Vermont in the 1980s as an Independent Socialist. To being elected to the U.S. House in 1990 and being reelected there seven times. To being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006, again as an Independent Socialist. To being reelected there in 2012. The longest-serving Independent in Congress in his 26th year in Congress. To underestimate Bernie and root for his defeat. Is like sticking your hand in a full shark tank with your eyes close. Not worth the risk.

The Democratic Party has had a socialist wing in it and mostly democratic socialist, since the late 1960s with the emergence of the New-Left. And you could go back to the 1940s with Henry Wallace and others and people who worked for the Roosevelt Administration. The Democrats have always had a wing that believes American capitalism is immoral, that wealth and success are selfish. That the only such thing as the people’s money is money that belongs to Uncle Sam to give out to his nieces and nephews in allowances. That believes masculinity is somehow bad and that men are inferior to women. That there’s no such thing as racism towards Caucasians and perhaps even the wrong country won the Cold War. And now this movement is big enough starting with Occupy Wall Street in 2011 to have a major presidential candidate who represents them.

And I’m not putting Bernie down, because I actually personally like the man and respect him for his honesty and actually believing in what he says and his politics. And fighting all of those losing battles in Congress for over twenty-years as a result. There’s something to respect about a person whose willing to fight the lost causes, because he believes they’re right and everyone else is stupid. Sort of like the Chicago Cubs fan who refuses to root another club, because they can’t move on from the Cubs even after 50-100 years of praying for another World Series championship. Or watching games at some place other than Wrigley Field. But not only that, Bernie is a moderate compared with most of his supporters. He’s the liberal in the movement who believes in free speech and even Freedom of Choice when it comes to social issues. And not down with fascist political correctness movement on the New-Left.

So when you think of Bernie Sanders for president think of Uncle Sam, but change the name to Bernie. Our new Uncle Bernie who our parents sent us to, because they were tired of dealing with us and all of our demands that they simply couldn’t afford and we didn’t deserve anyway. So they send us to our father’s brother lets say to take care of us and we think that is going to be horrible until we get there. But then we’re there and Uncle Bernie has all of these goodies for us that he says are free. Until we find out that we’re doing all sorts of chores around the house (meaning taxes) to pay for all of these supposed goodies. That is Bernie Sanders for president. A Democratic Socialist who’ll promise you everything that you’ll pay for. As well as more stuff that you don’t want or need. And leave you with a tax bill for that as well.

Democratic Socialists USA: Myths About Democratic Socialism

Source:Democratic Socialists USA-

Source:The New Democrat

With this piece, I’m going to layout as someone who is not a Socialist in any form, even in what I at least would view as the best form of a Socialist which are Socialist Liberals, what socialism is and what it isn’t. And again if you’re familiar with my blogging I’m more interested in the social democratic form of it, not the Marxist-Communist state-control form. I’m going to do this, because people who are Socialists, don’t own the label of their own politics. And prefer Progressive, or in Bill Press’s case Liberal. And all Socialists tend to get lumped in with Marxists. Which is something different.

Democratic socialism, is not about complete state-control. Sweden, is a successful social democracy with a very large welfare state and we can argue why they’re successful and why their system wouldn’t work here. But they have a large private economy with property rights and take home pay and a lot of other economic freedoms that every other developed Western country has. The world is really down to one Marxist state as far as state-control of both the economy, as well as social policy and politics and that of course being North Korea.

Democratic Socialists, aren’t Liberal Democrats. This is where I’m in complete agreement with DSA. Liberal democracy, is based on a guarantee of individual rights. Free speech, equal justice and equality under law, privacy, freedom of choice, personal responsibility even, rule of law, a national defense that defends the country, property rights, limited government, etc. As well as a safety net for people who truly need it, quality education for everyone and modern infrastructure. Liberal democracy, is truly about the individual. With a limited government there to protect everyone’s freedom equally.

Democratic socialism, is about welfare rights. Having a government big enough to make sure no one has to go without the basic necessities that everyone must have to live well in society. Health insurance, health care, education, pension, childcare, etc. And having a big centralized government with a lot of the power and responsibility in the country. Instead of the federal system where you have layers of government that each have real responsibility over their own affairs. Democratic socialism, is not just very government-centric, but big government-centric. And sees an entire country as one community. Instead of individuals living their own lives.

Democratic socialism, is not just an economic policy, but a political ideology. They have their own foreign and national security policy, as well as criminal justice policy. Which tends to be a lot more dovish at least compared with Liberals, Conservatives and even Libertarians. At least with criminal justice policy. But this is where even Democratic Socialists are somewhat diverse. Because you have Socialist Liberals, that sound like Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, even with free speech and personal choice. But are Democratic Socialists on economic policy. And you have the paternalists, who aren’t crazy about either economic, or personal freedom. Especially freedom of choice and free speech that can be offensive. And want government to regulate and prohibit.

If you look at the left side of the political spectrum, you have Liberals, or Social Liberals, who are Center-Left. Lets say FDR Progressives, who are more left, but still in the political mainstream in America. But move further left and you get to the New-Left, or even Far-Left with Democratic Socialists and even further left with Marxist-Communists. These are all different political factions and on the left, but they aren’t all the same political animal with four different political labels. They are separate political factions with things in common, but are very different ideologically.\
Source:NYC Internationalist Socialist Organization

Gata Bella: 'Ava Gardner's Private Moments'

Source:Gata Bella- Hollywood Goddess and  Babydoll Ava Gardner: perhaps being amazed by her own beauty and adorability.

Source:The Daily Review

"She was absolutely ravishing - no film had ever done her justice. And as a model, no one in my experience with mannequins and professionals surpassed her." ( Man Ray, painter, photographer)

Photos of Ava Gardner in her private life, with her men, friends and co-stars.

Music: "Speak Low" (by Eileen Wilson) and "How Am I To Know" (by Ava Gardner)"

From Gata Bella

I think what I love and respect most about Ava Gardner is not her beauty, (not many prettier) not her adorableness, (not many women cuter) not her sex appeal even though she was this gorgeous baby-faced brunette with a sweet body and great personality and sense of humor. What I love about her the most was her realness. The woman you saw on stage and in her movies is the woman you saw off camera. The people who worked for her and gave her roles knew her so well and set her up so beautifully.

It was like she was never acting in her movies, because she was so natural in the roles that she played. She always said that the only thing that she wanted was to be happy. Those are the characters that she played. She had the reputation of a somewhat immature wild child who went too far and had too much fun and then would pout when she wasn’t happy. You see her first seen in the movie Earthquake that she did with Charlton Heston and they have an argument and she’s in early fifties at this point and still very beautiful and adorable and she runs to the bathroom almost like a little girl and takes a lot of pills. Heston, her husband in the movie finds her and saves her.

She was always playing a bit of a wild child who loved to have a great time and took it too far. Because as she would tell you life to her was about being alive and living and not just being around. And enjoying life and being happy as much as you can. She died at 68, but she lived her life her way (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) and was Ava Gardner her entire life. This gorgeous baby-faced brunette with the personality and sense of humor to match. And I believe this is all part of why she’s so likable then and still so popular now. Because she was this goddess who was so sweet, charming and funny, but so real and you always knew who she was and what she wanted. Not a lot of mystery with Ava Gardner.

The New York Times: Andrew P. Kelly: 'The Problem Is That Free College Isn't Free'

Source:Now This World- what free college?

Source:The New Democrat 

“Free public college” is a great political talking point, but it is flawed policy.

First, free college isn’t free, it simply shifts costs from students to taxpayers and caps tuition at zero. That tuition cap limits college spending to whatever the public is willing to invest. But it does not change the cost of college, or what institutions actually spend per student. If the past is any guide, that cost will continue to grow, and an influx of federal money may lead profligate administrators to spend even more. Enrollments will also increase, further multiplying the cost of free college." 

From The New York Times 

"Should College Be Free?" 

From Now This World

I believe the main problem with many of these political debates has to do with language and how things are described. Whether it’s called free health care, free health insurance, free education, free college, free anything else that could be viewed as a positive thing that people should at least want to have. 

The fact is none of these things are free for everyone if they’re provided by government. Because who funds government? Of course the taxpayers and anyone who pays taxes. You even now have Democratic Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saying tuition-free college when he talks about his college plan. Because he knows he’ll have to have new taxes in order to pay for his so-called free college plan.

Just replace the word free with affordable and apply affordable to every new service that you want government to provide for people and now you’ll be telling the truth when speaking to voters. Instead of giving voters impressions that you would be giving them all of this free government stuff, you’ll be treating them like adults and taxpayers. 

The better way is to tell taxpayers that they would have a better deal for them (with deal being the key word) because better of course would be debatable, because it would depend on the plan. And then tell them how you would pay for whatever you want to provide for them. 

Democratic Socialists like Bernie, Jill Stein and whoever else, would earn credibility with Joe and Jane Average taxpayer who are already paying a lot in taxes who know the government services that they’re currently receiving aren’t free.

So of course Bernie Sanders so-called tuition-free college funding plan, sure as hell won’t be free. At least not for anyone who pays taxes including payroll taxes. Bernie will say he’ll tax corporations and rich people to pay for his plan. But then those business’s will raise the costs of their customers, because they don’t want to see their cost of business to go up. 

Rich individuals will take their business and investments somewhere else where taxes aren’t as high. And Bernie might come back with passing some new law that outlaws business’s from raising their prices to cover their tuition-free college costs. But again those business’s will just take their business somewhere else where their cost of business isn’t as high. 

Every service anywhere that comes with a cost in creating that service also comes with a cost in providing that service to their customers. Why would government be any different?

Charlie Rose Show: Jane Fonda Interview With Barbara Walters (2006)

Source:Marmar- Jane Fonda.

Source:The Daily Review

At risk of sounding exactly as I wrote with what I put on my Google+, Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook accounts, (do I have enough social network accounts?) I love the realness of Jane Fonda. There’s nothing phony about her, at least in real-life. Keep in mind she’s an actress and a damn good one and as I said in my last piece about her, the best actress of the Silent Generation not including Liz Taylor. So she can play real as well as it can be done, at least onstage. And since I’m not the purely cynical asshole that I tend to get seen as, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt here. And say she’s truly a real person in real-life. What you see for good and I believe at least the majority is good and for bad and I have my own political and judgment issues with her, what you see is what you get.

Despite Jane’s Far-Left collectivist politics there’s a real individualistic side to Jane Fonda. That says people should be who they are and then own that. Instead of feeling the need to fit in and be other people. Which is exactly how I look at life as a Liberal. Personal freedom can never be real if individuals are not only free to be themselves, but then accept that and take advantage of that. But to paraphrase Jane, then you have to own who you are. ‘This is who I am as a person for good and bad. This is where I do well and perhaps could do better. This is where I come up short and need to work on to be a complete person.’ Not that you try to be perfect, but that you’re as good of a person that you can be. Because you know who you are and where you’re strong. While you’re improving at your flaws.

Without Jane Fonda’s activism against the Vietnam War and how big she was with the anti-war movement and the broader New-Left, I don’t there’s a whole lot to criticize her about. I don’t think there would be much that is controversial about her. The Christian-Right would still get on her about sexual movies in the 1960s like Barbarella, but that was in the 1960s at the heart of the Counter Culture and Cultural Revolution. And today if anything she’s still very popular, because she did movies like that and others like The Chapman Report. That looks at sex between married couples as well as adultery. Which was still very controversial in 1962. Jane Fonda, is someone who you really have to look at the whole picture before you make up her mind about her. Because she’s truly a complete and real person who can’t be looked at as good, or bad, or in black and white. Because like life in general she’s complicated.
Source:Marmar

Paul Krugman: 'New Deal Created the Middle Class': Not So Fast

Source:FORA-TV- Left-Wing Economist Paul Krugman. 

Source:The New Democrat

Government, doesn't create economic classes. They can assist people to do better. Which is where things like education, infrastructure, a modern working regulatory state, a tax code that encourages expansion and economic growth, a safety net for people who are struggling, etc. Government can also encourage people not to do well. We have ghettos, because of public housing being concentrated in low-income communities that have low education and high crime rates. Families with mothers who don't have the skills to take care of their kids and where their father of their kids are out of the picture, etc.

The New Deal was not an economic policy, or ideology. But the creation of the American safety net that is today even with the Great Society is still much smaller than European welfare states. I and others left and right would argue that is a good thing. But that our safety net need to be better, not bigger and designed to empower people to take control over their own lives. And not leave them in poverty. Which is really a different discussion. It wasn't the New Deal that created the American middle class. We already had one before the Great Depression. Just like the New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression. Since we were still dealing with the Depression at the start of World War II.

The role of government at least in a free society with a private economy is not to manage the economy. But to see that there is an environment where the most people possible can succeed. Which is what I mentioned in the first paragraph. Quality education for all, a national modern infrastructure system, a tax code that encourages economic growth, a modern regulatory state that does the same thing, while at the same time protects consumers and workers. You want government to promote your trade and your products and a safety net that empowers people to get up on their own feet. Doesn't hold them down with a few extra bucks. And then let the people make the most of the economy that they put into it and collect the results from it.
Source:FORA-TV

Democratic Socialists of America: Thomas F. Jackson- Martin Luther King for Our Times

Source:Dr. Martin L. King- One of Dr. King's best quotes.

Source:The New Democrat

"In 1968, a united black community in Memphis stepped forward to support 1,300 municipal sanitation workers as they demanded higher wages, union recognition, and respect for black personhood embodied in the slogan “I Am a Man!” Memphis’s black women organized tenant and welfare unions, discovering pervasive hunger among the city’s poor and black children. They demanded rights to food and medical care from a city and medical establishment blind to their existence."

From DSA

"This sermon was preached on Dec.16, 2012 at First United Methodist Church in Reddick, FL by Russell Clark as part of our "It's the End of the World as We Know It: The Impact of Culture on the Church" sermon series."

From Reddick UMC

Source: Reddick UMC- Pastor Russell Clark 

What Thomas Jackson was writing in his DSA piece about Martin King was the next stage of Dr. King’s civil rights and really people’s right campaign. His Poor People’s Campaign and his campaign for economic justice. Dr. King, was the Henry Wallace or Norman Thomas of his time. The 1950s and 60s version of Bernie Sanders. A hard-core self-described Democratic Socialist. Who saw racial bigotry and poverty, especially poverty that overwhelmingly affects one race of Americans over everyone else, as a horrible tragedy. As a national man-made disaster that had to be dealt with right away. Not just for people who suffer in deep poverty, but for the country as a whole. The fewer people you have in poverty the stronger economy you’ll have. More people working and consuming quality products.

Dr. King’s, vision of economic justice not just for African-Americans, but Americans in general was a welfare state that was big enough so no one had to live in poverty. Where all American workers could organize and become members of labor unions. Where the Federal Government guaranteed a national basic income for all of it’s citizens. Where no American was so wealthy that any other American had to live in poverty. Where quality education and housing would be available to all Americans. His agenda, would be even radical even today. Senator Bernie Sanders, is a self-described Democratic Socialist today. But a lot of his followers who are even to the left of Bernie are still afraid of that label and as a result won’t own their own politics. So you could imagine how Dr. King’s economic vision was viewed as back then.

Similar to Senator Sanders, I share many of Dr. King’s goals, but I don’t share the same vision for how to achieve them. But what I like and respect about both them is that they both put their visions and plans out there. And then let people let them know how they feel about them. Dr. King, didn’t want to assist people in poverty. He wanted to end poverty and have an economy where everyone could get educated and get good jobs. Including taxing the wealthy heavily to fund programs to help people achieve their own economic success. Which would be form of wealth redistribution. He put his whole agenda post-civil rights movement and the Fair Housing Law of 1968 out there. About what the next stage of his human rights campaign would have gone into the 1970s.

There was nothing mushy-middle about Dr. King. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was not considered mainstream. It almost destroyed the Democratic Party in the South. But as Dr. King said, ‘it’s always time to do the right thing.’ If something is right you do it whether it’s popular or not. Civil and equal rights are now the backbone of American liberal democracy. But they weren’t even in the 1960s and after that campaign was won. Dr. King didn’t decide to move to the center. But instead moved even farther forward. With his own democratic socialist vision for America that unfortunately, because of his assassination he didn’t have much of an opportunity to see it through. And his
movement didn’t really have anyone as strong as him that could pick up his mantle and move the ball forward for his campaign.