Atheist Ute: Christopher Hitchens- On The Left's Double Standards

Source:Atheist Ute- British author and writer, Christopher Hitchens.

Source:The New Democrat

“This is against his debate with Dr. Playthell Benjamin about the War in Iraq / War on Terror.”

From Atheist Ute

I actually agree with every point that Chris Hitchens made in this short video except for one point. And that is probably the closest that I’ve ever come to completely agreeing with Chris Hitchens on anything.

Hitchens was a Socialist on economic policy and social policy and in his last ten-years or so he became a Neoconservative on foreign policy and national security. But the one point that I disagree with him on and then I’ll tell you where I agree with him is his point about left liberalism. There is nothing center-left about people on the Left, (Far-Left, really) and their critiques about people who legitimately criticize Islamists. That is pure fascist, political correctness, at its worst and illiberal because it goes against free speech.

Now here where I agree with Hitchens: The Far-Left has this attitude that if you criticize people from either a government or a private organization of lets say of a non-European background and you don’t go after bad things that the United States has done in the same critique that somehow that is racist or you’re a bigot in someway.

Actually if you go after non-Europeans government or otherwise at all you could be branded as a racist even if you have the facts on your side. If you don’t believe me just look at Bill Maher and what he went through with the Far-Left back in September and October about his critique os Islam. You talk about ISIS and the evil acts that they’ve done, they’ll say what about the KKK in America or the Nazis in Germany. The simple answer being: “what about the KKK or Nazis”

The Far-Left in America at least is not adequate to debate and talk about ISIS or any other national security challenge that America faces for the simple reason that they have a politically correct strategy and attitude in response to those threats. Instead of just calling birds, birds and sheep, sheep. Meaning describing things and people as they are, even if that offends some people.

To take on a challenge and threat, you first have to know what that threat is and what they are about and capable of and what they have done. Even if those facts may tend to offend some people who perhaps are over-sensitive to begin with. Liberals and Conservatives and to a certain extent Libertarians in the conservative sense like Rand Paul understand this. The Far-Left hasn’t figured that out yet.

Center For Public Integrity: Wendell Potter: 'Britain's Healthcare System is Better'

Source:Wendell Potter- Brits for their socialist health care system.

Source:The New Democrat

Just case there isn’t enough evidence that America won’t have a British based government-run health care system both health insurance and health care anytime soon perhaps not even in my lifetime and I’ll forty this year, is look at the Veterans Administration and the reforms they went though last year. Because of bipartisan legislation passed out of the last Congress that even Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders voted for and was actually one of the authors of the bill. That gives our military veterans actual choice which is a four-letter word for Socialists for the most part, in how they receive their health care. They now have an option of private or public health care.

Not even politicians and political activists as far to the Left as Senator Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader and former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich are calling for a complete nationalization of the United States health care system. They want Medicare For All single payer to go along with the private health care system. Meaning the providers, meaning hospitals and clinics. Senator Sanders is open to having a Medicare public option as a compromise to single payer. If the British health care system is so great, then why are they only of 3-4 developed countries in the world that have a complete government-run health care system. Britain, Sweden and maybe one or two others. Sweden a country of nine-million people by the way. That has a lot of land and is not only energy independent, but a net exporter of energy.

Seriously if anyone thinks that U.K. NHS is the health care model for America, first take a look at the VA pre-2014 and to see if that is what you want to impose on the entire country. And if you still believe that then propose the plan for complete nationalization of the American health care system. Which means not only outlawing private health insurers, but nationalizing private hospitals and clinics, making all doctors in the country now federal employees and nationalizing local community own and run hospitals and clinics. Even Britain has started moving away form their own state-owned health care system and has allowed for some private hospitals and clinics and small health insurers.

I like the Medicare public option idea and was a supporter of it back in 2009-10 and not for the reasons that Social Democrats in America wanted it. They saw it as the last step before single payer. I supported it for the opposite reasons because it would bring in that word that Social Democrats hate and see as a four-letter word, which is competition. You have Medicare available for everyone and get it out of the hands of Congress and the Administration and let it run a non-profit under the same regulations as private non-profits and it would force private health insurers including for-profits to deliver better services or risk losing a lot of business. That is how you improve health care in America and make it more affordable. Competition instead of creating a gigantic monopoly.
Source:RT- RT is at least partially funded by President Vladimir Putin's Russian Federation Government.

CBS News: ‘The Tenement- Life In Chicago’s Black Ghetto (1967)’

Source:The New Democrat 

Source:CBS News- a woman who was interviewed for this documentary.

“One in this series of irregularly scheduled in-depth reports. This program focuses on the lives of nine families living in a dilapidated tenement on Chicago’s south.” 

From  Erzade Atan 

"This program focuses on the lives of nine families living in a dilapidated tenement on Chicago's south side in 1966. It includes interviews with Chicago residents, including those who lived at 3823 South Ellis Street prior to their eviction. Program highlights depict the following: a mother and newborn leave Cook County Hospital; Georgia Johnson, a tenant for fifteen years; a mother washes for a family of twelve; an eleven-year-old cares for younger siblings; members of "The Four Corners" gang; children play in a vacant lot; the tenement at 10:00 pm; church service; a neighborhood fire; high school drop-outs; a tenant's funeral; and exodus of tenants before the building is demolished." 

Source:CBS News- 1967 documentary about a Chicago ghetto.

From Hezakya Newz & Films

At risk of sounding political, but I’ll also be factual here, what you see in this film and community is the failures of public housing in America. And essentially forced segregation of not just the races, but of the economic classes for lack of a better term in America. Where you had middle class communities that are doing well. Upper class communities that are doing very well. And then lower class communities where the people there get what is left. Which is run-down apartment buildings, run-down schools. High crime rates where no one with real money wants to invest. And you create a community that looks like a big city inside of a third world country.

Public housing by itself is not a problem because that has prevented a lot of homelessness in America. But how its been run and managed in America especially for the kids being trapped in such run-down communities in run-down neighborhoods. A lot of times in single-parent families where the father is out of the picture for one reason or another. Where the mother might not even have a high school diploma let alone any college experience. Working two or three jobs to support her several kids, if she’s working at all. And having communities like this has serious costs. For the people who live there obviously, but for the country as a whole that has to try to makeup for what these families aren’t able to provide for themselves.

And the way public housing has been run in America has negatively affected the African-American community probably more than any community in the country other than the American-Indian community. Because African-Americans have generally had a poverty level twice that of the national average. And much higher than the Caucasian-American and Asian-American communities in America. And this is something that we should stop doing as a country and instead having public housing buildings in middle class communities. With education, job training and work opportunities for the people in these communities so they don’t have to live in public housing at all.

Russia Today: 'Louisiana - The World's Prison Capital'

Source:Russia Today- with a look at private prisons in Louisiana.

"Louisiana's for-profit prison system has guaranteed it more prisoners than anywhere else on the earth." 

From MACC

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

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.[8][18] 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.[19][20][21] 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 (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly 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[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] 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.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] 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.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

I don't agree with everything that they're saying here President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today. (I guess China'a China Central Television wasn't available for this video) But I'm against locking people up for profit, keeping people in prison in longer, just so these private prisons can make more money at taxpayers, as well as at prison inmates expense. 

If there's a central role of government (federal, state, local) criminal justice and law enforcement, as well as national security, and foreign policy (to name a few) are obviously the roles of government. 

You want to make prisons cheaper, put inmates to work and educate them so they can cover their own incarceration, as well as stop locking up nonviolent offenders who are simply incarcerated because they're addicted to a dangerous substance or have committed other victimless crimes.

CBS News: 1968 Special: Black History: Lost, Stolen or Strayed, Starring Bill Cosby

Source:The New Democrat

I think the point of this film is that a lot that has been written about African-Americans about American history has been incorrect and stuff that is true about the community has been left out. Which almost fifty-years later is pretty obvious, but back in 1968 it certainly wasn’t. And that African-Americans themselves probably weren’t very familiar with their history especially the positive aspects of it. And probably weren’t even taught about it. It wasn’t until the 1880s or so that African-Americans were allowed to learn how to read, let alone get an education. Because they were treated by Caucasian-Americans as animals.

The other point being that a lot that has been written and portrayed about the African-American community has not just been racist, but simply false. The Birth of The Nation film from 1918 is an excellent example of that. And then go to the movies starting in the 1930s or so featuring African-Americans were portrayed as servants to Caucasians. Or were seen as criminals that no man would ever dare let their daughters be anywhere near. That fact is left obvious even back then because all Americans were familiar with the movies and TV and all had access to them for the most part.

I think the whole point of African-American History Month is to correct many wrongs that were written about the community in the past. And not portray the African-American community as perfect, because no community is. But to give a more balance look at the community and to point out that this community has given a lot to America from day one and even before we officially became the United States. And to show that even though this community still has a lot of challenges in America, they are by far the most successful African community in the world. That has contributed a lot to America and then some.

Wendy Kaminer: 'The Progressive Ideas Behind The Lack of Free Speech On Campus'

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t want to say this is true about every college in America, but it is true about too many of them especially where the faculties lean very left. And I’m not talking about liberal or center-left, but much further left than that to the point that they not only believe certain speech is wrong and offensive, but to the point that they don’t even believe it should be considered. And see it as dangerous to the point it shouldn’t even be heard let alone considered. And this affects their student bodies and turns them into essentially campus fascists. Where they won’t allow alternative views to be heard.

If there is any place in the country where freedom of thought and speech and new ideas would be heard, it would be on college campus’. Where young adults whose minds aren’t completely developed would be able to access all sorts of ideas and be able to consider them themselves. While their teachers give them the history and facts about those ideas and philosophies. In other words teach their students how to think and to examine things. But not what to think and leave that up to them once they are trained in how to examine ideas and thoughts. Because now they would be able to see those things for themselves.

And I’m sure there are already colleges like that in America, Otherwise political correctness would be a hell of a lot popular instead of losing support. But as a teacher or professor or dean if you don’t promote the idea of freedom of thought and speech at your school, you’re essentially telling your students that you don’t trust them. That even though they are smart and did well in school to the point they are now students are your college, they can’t be trusted to think for themselves. And as a result you end up promoting a collectivist society where people at the top decide what is right and wrong in society. Instead of a free society where people have the freedom to think and speak for themselves.

Salon Magazine: Magazine Bert Neuborne: The First Amendment As We Know it Today Didn't Exist Until The 1960s

Source:The New Democrat

I guess my question for Bert Neuborne who wrote this piece over at Salon would be did our First Amendment as we at least know it today didn’t exist until the 1960s, or is it just that the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal courts misinterpret the First Amendment and our Freedom of Speech? Because I think it is pretty obvious that arresting a political candidate for speaking out against a war, or newspapers for endorsing the opponent of the president is unconstitutional. I think you would have a hard time finding even a Far-Right judge today who would go along with that. At least when it comes to endorsing the opposition.

Again my question about have we always had the same First Amendment, but it was interpreted wrongly in the past, or has it simply changed over the years form one way or the other? Because our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals as I at least call them couldn’t of anticipated all the modern forms of communication that we have today and have had in the past. They couldn’t even anticipate the telephone landlines even or radio when they wrote the Constitution. Doesn’t mean our First Amendment doesn’t cover all of these modern devices. Because whether you speak this way or the other and use this device to communicate or another, you’re still speaking. And government at all levels is very limited in how they can regulate your speech under the First Amendment.

The last fifty-years or so the Federal courts have essentially interpreted Free Speech as covering every form of speech with few exceptions having to do with inciting violence, libel, yelling fire that isn’t there in tight public spaces. Now is that because our liberal Free Speech has only existed in the last fifty-years or so, or is that because the Federal courts were wrong or correct depending on your perspective in how they interpreted the First Amendment in the first 180 plus years or before the 1960s. I’m not a lawyer or historian obviously, but I believe our First Amendment as it is today and with all the speech that it protects has always been with us. Based on Congress shall make not law that infringes on the right of free speech.