Al Jazeera: 'Venezuela Vote Result Could Impact Latin America'

Source:Al Jazeera- interviewing Pablo Pastro for this piece.

"Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is campaigning ahead of next Sunday's presidential election, where he hopes to be voted in for another term in office.  The vote will be crucial for the future of the oil-rich nation.   But the result could also affect many people far beyond Venezuela's borders, as the budgets of several Latin American countries factor in aid from Chavez's government.  Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman reports from Caracas." 

From Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], "The Island")[3] is a state-owned[a] Arabic-language international news network of Qatar. It is based in Doha and operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The flagship of the network, its station identification, is Al Jazeera.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[4] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the government of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence.[5][6] In June 2017, the Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and Egyptian governments insisted on the closure of the entire conglomerate as one of thirteen demands made to the Government of Qatar during the Qatar diplomatic crisis.[7] The channel has been criticised by some organisations as well as nations such as Saudi Arabia for being "Qatari propaganda." 

From Wikipedia

I'm obviously no fan of Socialist President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. But it seems from this Al Jazeera piece (which is no right-wing news organization) that the Chavez Administration (if you want to call it that) has been giving way their oil and gas for free, to other Latin American countries with socialist government's, like Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because their ideological allies. That's Venezuelan money that was created in Venezuela, bye Venezuelans, that should be going into the Venezuelan economy, for the Venezuelan people, that instead is going to Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because those countries have socialist government's.

Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:WNYC- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern.Bernie Sanders of his generation.

Source:The Daily Journal

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg

SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor

But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From Daily Kos

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Joseph Hewes- Conservative Barry Goldwater vs. Socialist Norman Thomas 

From  Joseph Hewes

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

The Newsroom: Will McAvoy: 'RINOS Are The Real Republicans'

Source:Sree Kumar- the cast of HBO's The Newsroom.

Source:The Daily Journal

"This post may seem wildly dated, in that it takes up an American sitcom that first ran from 2012 to 2014 — but stick with me for a moment, and maybe it’ll seem topical again.

I first watched the The Newsroom in India, in re-runs a year or two after it first broadcast, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Notwithstanding criticisms from many reviewers, including some I usually agree with, about ineptitude, intellectual snobbery and worse, to me it seemed one of the smarter, more articulate of American comedy shows, with an interesting focus on what one might call “larger” issues.

Even before I watched the TV show I had, like pretty much everyone else who uses WhatsApp in India, seen an excerpt which went viral, at least in my country. It was labelled, “The Most Honest 2 Minutes on American TV”, or something on those lines. Just icymi, in that clip (viewable here), drawn from from Episode 1, Season 1, an American university student innocently asks a panel including key protagonist Will McAvoy the leading question, What makes America the greatest country in the world."

From Kay Sree Kumar 

This is from HBO's The Newsroom episode when anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are the real Republicans. And the fake Republicans are actually populist Tea Party and the rest of the Populist-Right in America. 

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as anchor of The Newsroom Will McAvoy.

Another look at the episode from HBO’s The Newsroom where their anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are actually the real Republicans. And the populists are the fake Republicans.

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as the anchor of The Newsroom.

I'll be honest, I'm not a regular viewer of HBO's Newsroom, but I've seen a few scenes of it. And what I've gotten out of it, is the anchor of this Newscast, is an admitted Republican. A Conservative Republican even, but a Republican in how the Republican Party use to be. 

Will McAvoy Republicans tend to be well-educated, intelligent, believe and reason and facts, are religious even, but believe in factually based evidence and facts and don't let their religious beliefs runs their lives for them, especially when their religion goes against facts and evidence.  

The people that I'm guessing Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) believes are the real RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are people who are so hard-core with their religious and culturally based, nationalistic even political philosophy, that they are the people who are the real RINOS, because they don't believe in facts and evidence, just their political fundamentalism. And screw off facts and evidence, when they go against their partisan politics. 

Salon: Steve Kornacki: 'Sorry, It’s Not Mitt Romney’s Fault'

Source:Salon Magazine.

"The election is just over a month away, and only now is a leading conservative publication stepping forward to tell Mitt Romney that the premise on which he’s built his entire presidential campaign is wrong.

The Romney campaign’s assumption has been that economic anxiety will have swing voters in a firing mood in November, and that their desire to punish Barack Obama will push them into the GOP nominee’s column. But as a National Review editorial that went up last night points out:

What Romney has not done is address the major problem he has in making the case: the shadow of the George W. Bush years. Americans are more likely to blame Bush for the financial crisis that started on his watch than to blame Obama for the slow recovery from it. And even before the financial crisis, the last period of Republican governance was not especially good for America’s middle class.

It’s a valid assessment. Plenty of evidence is now available that Obama is benefiting politically from the public’s memory of the 2008 meltdown that played out on Bush’s watch, with voters willing to weigh current economic conditions against the catastrophe that was in full swing as Obama took office."

Source:Salon Magazine

Wow, the second time in the last two weeks I'm sort of standing up for Mitt Romney. But its true, Mitt is 20-30 years past his time as far as the Republican Party as it stands today, is not the Republican Party that Mitt grew up with and was a member of as a young man and as an early middle age man and someone who was finally elected to public office in his mid fifties in 2002. 

What's called the Republican Party today, (that in many cases doesn't even believe in American Republicanism) is now a Far-Right party, that sees Americans of today as Un American, if they don't look at the world the way they do and people who don't belong. 

In America, the so-called Republican Party, is no longer a big tent party, that can win all across the country. It instead is essentially made up of people, who are aren't accustomed to being with people who aren't from their community and see these people as Un American. And Mitt finds himself having to try to appease to these people, while looking sane and tolerant to the rest of the country and it's just something that can't be done. Because the fringe he needs to vote for him, are completely different from the rest of the country and its sort of an either-or proposition. You can't please both.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: 'Roseanne Barr Says Nationalize The Banks, Just Like Iceland, To Fix Economy'

Source:Russia Today- comedian/2012 presidential candidate Roseanne Barr, talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"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 

"Actress & Activist Roseanne Barr, Peace & Justice Party candidate for President, talks to Thom Hartmann about drones, legalizing medical Marijuana & how to rebuild the economy." 

From Russia Today 

So according to the Far-Left in America, the best way to be taken seriously in America, is to run a comedian for President and have that person be interviewed by President Vladimir Putin's state TV in the Russian Federation. 

This is sort of the old theory of the best way to lose weight, is to eat nothing but fried chicken, pizza, and potato chips, and drinking nothing but beer, with the only exercise that you get is walking from your couch to your door to pay your delivery man or woman, or walking from your couch to the kitchen to get another beer or more food. Actually, I''m not aware of anyone having that theory to lose weight. But that makes as much sense as running a comedian for President, in order to be taken seriously in American politics. 

As far as comedians go, I think American Socialists could do a helluva lot worst for a presidential candidate. Roseanne Barr even seems to have her own political platform and perhaps have spent some time (in-between jokes) about the issues that she cares about. 

The main reason why we don't have an organized socialist movement in America (even though we have plenty of Socialists) is because Socialists and leftists in general don't believe in organization. Except when it comes to big government and running other people's lives for them. But to get that type of power, you have to be organized politically, first. 

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico: 'Why Do the Craziest Religious People Get the Most Attention?'

Source:AlterNet- columnist Valerie Tarico.

“There’s no question that religion can have some ugly moral and social consequences. The homophobic and misogynist attitudes of many American Evangelicals come straight out their sacred texts. So do the Islamic concepts of “dhimmitude” and jihad. So does the Jewish notion of favored bloodlines. So do Mormon and Scientologist recruiting practices. The Bible prescribes the death penalty for thirty six infractions, ranging from childhood disobedience to marital infidelity to witchcraft. The Quran contains over a hundred verses sanctifying the slaughter of infidels in one context or another. I’ve argued in the past that religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, but in a world of complex causation, one where straws sometimes break the backs of camels, that may be a distinction without a difference. The fact is, putting God’s name on Iron Age morality contributes to Iron Age behavior.

There also can be no question that, in this regard, not all ideologies are created equal. Religions differ in their history, teaching, and priorities, and consequently in how readily they are leveraged to justify oppression or violence. To name this month’s most salient example, Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy, combined with a prohibition of images, means that some Muslims are uniquely likely to flare when testosterone gets ignited by blasphemous pictures. The Onion made this point recently with a graphic cartoon depicting Jesus, Moses, Ganesh, and Buddha engaged in sex, beneath the caption, “No One Murdered Because of This Image.” 

From the AlterNet

“In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher addresses Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law and calls on moderates of all religions to come out against fundamentalism.”

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on religious fundamentalism.

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

“Religious fundamentalism: sexier than Catholicism”

Source:FreeState MD- a woman who is perhaps out of this world.

Probably the same reason why the craziest Atheists who want to outlaw religion, because they are crazy and don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t want to hear about someone, stop talking about them and you’ll hear less.

I like this article in the AlterNet, (perhaps the only article I’ve ever liked by the AlterNet) because Valerie Tarico takes on fundamentalists from all religions. Not just Evangelical Christians, which is what today’s so-called Progressives (the Far-Left really) only focus on:

“Christian-Conservatives, are evil bigots, because they put down women and gays. Conservative-Muslims, are good decent people, who are simply misunderstood. And when they do and say bad things, it’s America’s fault.” Which is generally the attitude that you get from the Far-Left. Which is what the AlterNet is, a clearly left-wing, if not socialist publication on the Far-Left. But with what you get with Valerie Tarico, is religious fundamentalism is bad, even it comes from non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.

If religious fundamentalism and bigotry that comes from religious fundamentalism, is a bad thing like gays aren’t real humans, or are mentally handicapped, or women’s place is in the home, etc, then religious fundamentalism is bad period. Doesn’t matter the religion, the race, ethnicity, or color of the people.

If you’re going to put down the Christian-Right when one of their members murders a man simply because he thought that guy was gay, because he had a feminine voice and demeanor, then you can’t defend that same behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government.

The debate about religious extremism shouldn’t be about race, ethnicity, color, or a specific religion. Unless you’re simply bigoted about one race, ethnic, or religious group. To coin a phrase from the great movie about Watergate All The President’s Men: “Follow the money.” Or in this case follow the bigotry. When the Christian-Right behaves badly, sure, go after them. But when Islamists behave badly, don’t call people who criticize that behavior bigots simply for criticizing bad behavior.

Stupid people, unfortunately come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, ethnicities, religions and genders. Which makes them harder to deal with, because they can hit you at anytime from anyone. No race, ethnicity, religion or gender, has a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry. Which is too bad, because it would be easier to deal with and eliminate:

“Hey, now that we know what all stupid look like, lets just focus on them and put the bigoted morons away.”

You can’t do that with a mental disease like stupidity, simply because we don’t have enough prison and hospital space to house all of those morons. And given these facts when you just concentrate on the bigots from one religion and race of people, while you ignore the bigots from another religion which just happens to be the largest religion in the world, being Islam, you give away get out of jail free cards to a lot of people. Who are just as bigoted as the Christian-Conservatives you don’t like. Which is stupid in itself. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

HLN: Showbiz Tonight- Countdown: 'Best Burnett Ever!'

Source:HLN- From Showbiz Tonight. 

Source:The Daily Journal

"The cast of the "Carol Burnett Show" including Burnett herself countdown the show's best moments on Showbiz Tonight."

From HLN

Source:The Daily Review- The Carol Burnett Show, being honored.

One of the best variety comedy shows of all-time, sort of like a half-hour Saturday Night Live. Speaking of SNL: SNL gets a lot of credit for being such an original variety skit-comedy show that other shows have tried to follow and make their own versions of it. And all of that is true, but Carol Burnett, was essentially the same thing, but came out 6-7 years earlier in the late 1960s, instead of 1975 with SNL and was on CBS instead of NBC. And you could make a case that Carol Burnett herself and her show with his her great cast and writers, inspired shows like Saturday Night Live and later In Living Color, MADD-TV and other skit comedy shows. Because of how good it was, how original it was, the topics it covered. That it wasn't about sending a political, or cultural message, but about making fun of everyday American life.

The Carol Burnett Show, covered and had everything and they weren't about politics at least in the sense they were trying to push some political message. It was simply about entertainment and what was going on in America at the time especially as it related to pop culture. And always looking for the funny side of everything they covered. They mad fun of politicians, movies, TV shows, actors, musicians, weren't worried about political correctness and pleasing everybody. But great comedians who all had similar sense of humors, great chemistry, who liked each other loved working with each other. And in that sense at least it reminds me of Seinfeld and was better than Saturday Night Live, that generally looks at politics from a political slant. Carol Burnett, was simply about making people laugh and doing it in a classy way and having a great time at it.