Gate Keeper 50: The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell- 'Janeane Garofalo Deflates Andrew Breitbart'

Source:Gate Keeper 50- Janeane Garofalo, the latest target of Alt-Rightist Andrew Breitbart.

"And in this corner, weighing in at very much less than her pompous loudmouth excrement filled opponent, Janeane Garofalo ... and in the other corner, the pompous loudmouth excrement filled Andrew Breitbart." 

From Gate Keeper 50 

"Over the weekend, Andrew Breitbart posted a profane speech he gave at a Tea Party conference attacking Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Janeane Garofalo. Many found the language inappropriate, but on tonight’s Last Word, Lawrence O’Donnell took the opportunity to psychoanalyze Breitbart as a little boy who never made it in Hollywood, taking swipes at the “honorable and decent” Garofalo out of envy." 

Source:Mediate- The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell.

From Mediate 

Just to comment on Larry O'Donnell's (as  call him) piece about Andrew Breitbart and Janeane Garofalo: I'm not a fan of Janeane Garofalo either. To me she's the President of the Escaped Mental Patients of America, when it comes to Hollywood, celebrity political commentators. But Andrew Breitbart is probably the Chairman of the Board of that group and about to defeat President Garofalo in their next election, if not through a coup. 

Janeane, is the perfect example of why entertainers should stick to entertaining. And Andrew is the perfect example of why political commentators should stick with political commentating. But only because neither of them know what the hell they're talking about when it comes their preferred professions. 

The wrongs of the Far Right, where should I start: I would've gone with where to begin but I used that as part of the title of my post, before I saw the Garofalo-Breitbart story . In the interest of originality I chose something else, I hope you like it but I also hope its not your focus of this post either. 

So moving on I separate the Far-Right, Alt-Right, or New-Right, from the Center-Right. As I believe any knowledgeable political junky or political analyst would. The Far-Right being the the Rush Limbaugh's, the Michele Bachmann's (a bad company, from my perspective) and others the Christian-Right and New-Right, the Christian Tea Party (as I call them) the authoritarian big government faction of the Republican Party, what the Republican Party didn't use to be. 

The Christian-Right and Neo Right (coming to life thanks to what they would outlaw, sex) in the late 1960s, early 1970s, a party that used to be about limited government and anti-big government, until the last 20 years has become about authoritarian big government. 

The Christian-Right believes Uncle Sam should be telling people how to live their lives and if they do something or are something that they don't like, they automatically assume that they must have some type of disease. And being the good Christians(that they claim to be) they try to cure them like the Bachmann's and others, or they try to send them to prison, by passing laws making what they are doing, whatever it is illegal even if they are not hurting any innocent people with their activities. 

I've just laid out what is wrong with the Far-Right in America: they are Big Government, Big Brother, Uncle Sam impersonators who believe Uncle Sam knows best how everyone else should live their lives and if they do something that not part of their moral code, they try to make it illegal. 

The Center-Right (as I see it) the Barry Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians are exactly what is right about the conservative movement in America. But unfortunately with the Republican Party and America as a whole have lost power in this country. They are the opposite of the Far-Right, because they are truly pro-limited government and anti-big government and believe that people should be left alone to live their own lives. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

The Far-Right and Center-Right (as I see it) are the two political factions and part of the same wing of the American political spectrum, but tend to be on the opposite sides when it comes to the Constitution and the role of government in America.

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'MSM: CA Prison Hunger Strike'

Source:Russia Today- anchor Alyona Minkovski, from President Vladimir Putin's propaganda network.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] 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." 

From Wikipedia 

"Despite the fact that it's now in its third week, the mainstream media is just finally catching on to Occupy Wall Street, and deciding that it's worthy of coverage. So today, I'd like to highlight another mass movement that's going on in this country, that deserves media attention, and that probably won't get it until maybe a couple of weeks from now, or maybe when the circumstances become tragic. By that I mean the California prison hunger strike." 

From Russia Today 

The title of Alyona Minkovski's editorial here is: "MSM: CA Prison Hunger Strike" but it takes her 2-1/2 minutes to get into the California prison strike. She spends the first minutes of her piece talking about the lack of mainstream media coverage of the New-Left political movement Occupy Wall Street. 

Maybe if Alyona wasn't part of Vladimir Putin's American based, Russian propaganda network Russia Today, she would be part of the mainstream media as well. But I guess not even the Far-Left MSNBC or Democracy Now wants to do business with her. 

As far as the California prison hunger strike: this is what happens when you treat grown men like animals, that's how they behave. You could argue that they acted like animals on the streets and are now getting what they deserved being thrown into human cages. But even people serving life without deserve the most basic of human living conditions like decent food, fresh air, clean water, etc. Doesn't mean the most violent of criminal offenders don't need to be isolated from general population, but they have a constitutional right to basic human living conditions as well. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Kevin Zeese- 'American Spring? Occupy Wall Street Just The Beginning'

Source:Russia Today- Kevin Zeese, talking to Alyona Minkovski, from President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Occupy Wall Street began on Saturday, September 17th and it's still going. Hundreds of people have spent two nights in Zuccotti Park, which they got permission to occupy and sleep in and the area has been dubbed Liberty Plaza. But how long could this really last?  Kevin Zeese, a core organizer of October2011.org weighs in."

From Russia Today

Looks to me like Democratic Socialists in America are making it official and that they “are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore”. And their first target is going to be on Wall Street and that they are also going to get help from Libertarians as well. Another political faction that Wall Street is not popular with right now. And that Socialists are looking to start what they call an ‘American Spring’ and have a Socialist Revolution in America. And it looks like the big banks are their first target and getting them closed down.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, what the mainstream media in America, as well as young Socialists called the New-Left (an emergence of young Socialists and Communists in America) emerged to take on American capitalism and Corporate America. Perhaps this is Generation X's and the Millennial's version of their New-Left and they're here to take on American capitalism and Corporate America today. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Real News: Paul Jay - 'Ontario Elections - Is This All There Is?'

Source:The Real News- debate night in Ontario.

"Sam Gindin: The times cry out for a radical alternative to capitalism" 

From The Real News

One thing I like about Canadian politics is that they have real choice in who Canadian voters can vote for. They have real Conservative Party, a real Liberal Party, and a real Social Democratic Party in the New Democratic Party that used to call themselves the Socialist Party. And all three of these parties are very competitive and can make a difference in their Federal elections.

C-SPAN: BookTV- Noam Chomsky on Socialism in 2003

Source:CSPAN- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about socialism in 2003.

"Noam Chomsky responds to a caller's request for his thoughts on socialism, during a 2003 interview by Brian Lamb, for C-SPAN's "In Depth" program. He describes how socialism was equated with the Leninist model of the Soviet Union by both the USA and its allies on the one hand, and the USSR and its allies on the other." 

From CSPAN 

"Noam Chomsky, professor of Linguistics at MIT University in Cambridge, MA, talked about his life and career as a political activist and critic of U.S. foreign policy. Among the topics he addressed were efforts to combat terrorism, war with Iraq, and Bush administration economic and foreign policy. He also responded to questions from viewers on the telephone and submitted by fax and electronic mail." 

Source:CSPAN- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about socialism in 2003.

From CSPAN 

I partially disagree with Professor Noam Chomky here. What he would call socialism, is where the people have a stake in their economic and personal lives and ability to make their own decisions and not be dominated by their employers or government. That's basically what social democracy is and is the dominant political and governmental philosophy in the developed world, outside of America. 

But there's also an authoritarian aspect of socialism where you essentially put the state (meaning the national government and party in power) in charge of everything in society, especially the people. And at best in a Communist state like this the people sacrifice their personal and economic freedom to the government, in exchange for their well-being. And at worst which is how communism is generally practiced, the people are essentially slaves to their own government.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Thom Hartmann: Len Gilroy- 'Should Prisons Be Run For Profit?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- to answer Thom Hartmann's question: hell no!

"Thom Hartmann hosts Len Gilroy, Director of Government Reform at Reason Foundation. They debate the idea of making U.S. Prisons into private businesses.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann 

I agree with Thom Hartmann's first point about private prisons and that they shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place. But then he goes into this Far-Left propaganda about Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics, which has nothing to do with private prisons and loses me like a Ford Pinto driver competing with NACAR drivers at the Indianapolis 500, or some race. And perhaps leaving his guest to wonder if he was ever going to be able to talk about what he originally was on the show, for which was private prisons. 

When I think of what government should be doing and I'l admit my list is not very long, but the main role of government is to protect and to serve, as well as defend and regulate how people interact with each other. So of course I believe government should be running our corrections system. 

Our corrections system should not have incentive to have as many inmates as possible, or leave inmates in prison as long as possible, thats what leads to overcrowded prisons. As well as sending non-violent offenders to prison who aren't a threat to anyone. And I'm thinking of drug addicts and other offenders who we and them would be better off with a short-term Jail Sentence. Or doing their time in halfway houses doing community service and help finding work. 

The biggest issue with privatization of corrections, is the fact that their main job is to make money. And the longer their inmates serve and the more inmates they have, the more money they make. Not at the expense of their inmates who live there, but at taxpayer expense, being paid for by people who are struggling to pay their current taxes. So hell no to private prisons, but hell yes to reducing our overcrowded public prisons, but getting most of our non-violent offenders, who aren't white-collar, economic offenders. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Ana Kasparian: 'Free Speech Has a Price'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski talking to Ana Kasparian.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] 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." 

From Wikipedia 

"So where is the line drawn on freedom of speech here in the US? Or better yet, who decides what is socially acceptable speech or not? Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks discusses." 

From Russia Today

As long as people don't threaten to kill, physically or libel other people or yell fire like in a theater, people can pretty much say whatever the hell that they want to in America, without facing consequences at least from government. It's that simple and that includes hate speech and the Westboro Church case back in March is a perfect example of this. 

You can call people whatever the hell you want to and say whatever the hell you want to them, as long as you don't threaten to physically hurt them, kill them or libel them. And then they can say whatever the hell that they want to in response in reply, under the same certain conditions in response. Thats what free speech is about. 

It's not just about political speech or religious speech for Christians (of course) hat some so-called Christian-Conservatives  may suggest. That however doesn't mean that when people say something that offends or that other people disagree with, that they are aren't potential consequences for what people say, nor should there be in any liberal democracy. People can respond to each other indefinitely as long as they don't threaten to physically hurt or kill someone or libel them. 

Yes, free speech does come with a price but that doesn't mean its not worth paying. People have to understand when living in a liberal democracy that before they say something that may offend others. Or others may disagree with, especially controversial things that may be viewed as bigoted. That the people who are offended or disagree with you may respond and hit hard back. So if you are going to be very expressive and feel the need to express yourself on controversial issues that you better have thick skin and not be easily offended. Especially when people say things to you that you know is wrong and if anything is ignorant. 

Me personally, as far as I'm concern, people can say and should feel free to say whatever they want to me. Just as long as they say it to my face and not behind my back. For one thing I pretty much know when someone has an opinion about me and what it is. And when I disagree with it, so what everyone is entitled to an opinion. And when they are right I take it for what its worth and move on with my life. It's not the act thats the problem but the coverup thats the problem. A lesson from the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. 

So to answer the question free speech does come with a price, the price being that people can talk back. Which is a good lesson in my case like my blog (to use as an example) I allow people to say whatever they want to about it, now I prefer that they are on topic and not make it personal. They also need to know however that if they are going to hit me, that I'll probably hit back. Unless they are so ignorant that they aren't worth my time. And by the way I'm thick skin and I hit hard, not bragging just a fact.