Jim Morrison: The Bad Boy of Classic Rock

Source:The Doors- The Lizard King Jim Morrison.

Source:The New Democrat

Jim Morrison aka The Lizard King, is the bad boy and frontman of classic rock and blues rock. I’m not interested in heavy metal and punk rock, where I’m sure you’ll find guys who got into more trouble and perhaps had even bigger addiction problems. Curt Cobain and Axel Rose come to mind damn fast for me. But, the heavy reliance and influence of black leather that you saw at least in the 1980s and 1990s especially with the leather jeans, boots, jackets, came from Jim Morrison. Which just to my point about how big a deal The Lizard King is when it comes to rock and roll and not just classic rock and blues rock where he made his biggest impact. But again heavy metal when you’re talking about wardrobe with the leather jeans, boots and jackets. That Jim Morrison made a staple of his wardrobe in the late 1960s, when almost no one else outside biker culture was wearing at all.

I don’t know of a frontman that meant more to his band than Jim Morrison. Not to take anything away from Ray Manzarek especially, who was great on the keyboards and also had a great singing voice. And Robby Krieger was an excellent guitarist and John Densmore could play the drums. But The Doors are famous because of Jim Morrison, but Morrison wouldn’t have needed The Doors at least the group that was put together to be famous and successful. How many other rock frontman at least from that generation, had the intelligence, the wit, the writing ability and then throw in the style that The Lizard King had. In an era where frontman looked somewhat preppy except for the long hair and looked like hippies, I mean we are talking about the late 1960s after all, Jim Morrison is wearing a black leather suit. Skin-tight black leather jeans, that would be called skinny leathers today. With a black leather suit jacket, an Indian concho belt and black suede and leather boots.

Jim Morrison not just put leather jeans on the map in rock and roll, but leather period. To the point that Elvis Presley starts wearing a black leather suit in the late 60s and early 70s. John Kay, from Steppenwolf has his own Lizard King outfit. With a leather vest, black leather jeans and an Indian belt. The hard rockers of the 1980s Kiss, Motley Crew, Guns N Roses, as well as heavy metal bands like Skid Row, are all wearing leather jackets and leather jeans. But much more casually than Jim Morrison and wore biker jackets and t-shirts with their leathers. Morrison, again was a rebel and did his own thing and did it so well that he made it so cool and had others following him. To the point that there are countless Doors cover bands and Jim Morrison covers. With the Jim Morrison figure always in his black leather and concho belt and at times with the black leather jacket.

But with The Lizard King, it’s not just his leather rock and roll fashion. And the fact that perhaps no other man has ever wore a black leather suit better. Or the fact that thousands of women went to Doors concerts to check the man out every night and to see what he would do on the stage next. But it was also his music and the fact that he and The Doors did their own thing and made their own music and to a certain extent sung about the times the 1960s, but did it their own way. Morrison, especially didn’t want to fit in some place, but instead create his own place that was even different from his own band members from again how he carried and presented himself on stage. And then see if others would follow him. The Baby Boom Generation, the 1960s rockers who made it big in that decade, lost three great stars. Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. But I’m not sure as great as Jimi and Janis would’ve been even combined would’ve they’ve meant more to rock and roll than Jim Morrison. The Lizard King was one in a kind and great at simply being himself as an entertainer. And we haven’t seen anyone as good, or similar since.
Source:Fame Music

Grit-TV: Richard Wolff: Bernie Sanders & Socialism

Source:GritTV talking to Socialist Professor Richard Wolff.

Source:The New Democrat

I guess I look at socialism like I look at conservatism. Not that they are similar, but that both have two competing factions in them. With conservatism, you have Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians and you have Libertarians. And lets leave the Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives out of this for the purpose of this piece. And with socialism, you have the Marxists, who are way out in left field. And is an ideology that has almost no power in the world now. And then you have the Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who not just believe in socialism and a democratic form of it, but believe that for socialism to be as effective as possible, you must have a sufficient private sector and private enterprise. To generate the revenue needed for the socialist state to thrive.

And Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters and before him lets say George McGovern in the 1970s, Norman Thomas in the 1960s, Henry Wallace in the 1950s and 1940s, all of these men are Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who are very democratic in nature and even believe in a level of both personal and economic freedom, but who believed that you needed a welfare state-run by government to see to it that no one was left behind. That everyone was taken care, that there was a social insurance system for people who go through tough times in the private enterprise economy. And to take care of people who are disabled and who simply can’t work at all.

In a democratic socialist system, you would have some industries that are nationalized as well. In the areas that Socialists believe everyone needs to have and be able to use at an affordable rate. Things like health care, education, health insurance, pension, energy, banking to use as examples. But by in the large the economy would be in private hands. People would not just own their own personal property, but could start their own business and run their business. You would even see large private business’s. Including automakers, telecommunications, media, manufacturing, all small and local business’s. But they would all be subjected to high taxes and regulations to see that no one has to go without. These being the differences between socialism and statism.

Barney Frank: 'Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie'

Source:Politico Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I’m not writing this because I believe Bernie Sanders will ever be President of the United States, or believe he can even beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The second part, I’m not sure about, but Bernie’s chances of ever being President of the United States are somewhere between George McGovern and none. And if you don’t know who George McGovern is, you might be to dumb and young to read this. And I’m not writing this because I support Bernie Sanders for president either. Because I don’t and have already declared my support for Martin O’Malley. Who I believe is the only true Liberal Democrat in the race at least as far as what he’s actually accomplished.

I’m writing this, because I don’t want Hillary Clinton to get a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination. Without having to explain to Democrats why she should be President of the United States. Other than who her husband is and do you remember the 1990s and oh by the way she’s a women and would be the first female President of the United States. Every single U.S. President that we’ve had at least since 1976 has had to go through a real primary process and has had to introduce them self and explain to voters why they want to be president and what they would do as president. Barack Obama 2008, George W. Bush 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 2000 and Jimmy Carter 1976. Why should Hillary Clinton be any different? What makes her more special than those future president’s?

This idea that Representative Barney Frank was making that if Hillary gets a real primary challenge in 2016, that will make her weaker in the general election against whoever the Republicans decide to nominate for president, assuming they actually make that decision, is at least borderline ridiculous and I could use stronger language than that. First of all, Hillary was the frontrunner not just for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but also expected to be the next President of the United States. But she ends up losing the Democratic nomination to a junior Senator named Barack Obama. So lets say she wins the nomination in 2008, she probably loses to John McCain in the fall. Because the issues that she would’ve had in the primaries like not knowing why she wanted to be president and not having a vision, would’ve come out.

Being the frontrunner, just means you’re the favorite going in. That you have the most support and best finances than any other candidate in the race. Similar to an NFL team expected to be the favorite to win the Super Bowl in the summer. But Super Bowls aren’t won in the summer. And presidential elections and primaries aren’t decided more than a year from the presidential election. At the end of the day the person with the best campaign, organization, finances and message and vision for where they want to take the country not just wins their party’s nomination for president, but is elected the next president. And then Senator Obama, simply beat then Senator Clinton in all of these areas in 2008.

A year from now assuming that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president, I don’t want her to still be in her centrist independent experience matters shell that she was in just a couple of months ago before Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley started to give her some real competition and forced her to give some real speeches and take real policy positions. And not know why she wants to be President of the United States. If Hillary hasn’t figured that out by now and figure out how to communicate that to Democratic voters, well one she might have a problem, but two she’s running out of time to figure that out. The first Democratic presidential debate will be in August, or September.

Political primaries, aren’t about destroying the frontrunner and doing whatever you can to beat that person at all costs and dividing the party. They are a real competition to decide who will not only be the next leader of the party, but the next leader of the country. And in this case the most important job in the world which is President of the United States. This is not something that should be handed out to the person with best name ID, or who happens to be the most popular in the party in the beginning. Democratic primaries at least, make Democratic presidential candidates better. Because it forces candidates to deal with issues and even their own concerns early on. While they still have time to deal with them and fix them. The competition that Hillary is getting right now, will only make her better if she handles it correctly and successfully address’ it. And if not, then maybe she shouldn’t be the next Democratic nominee for president, because she didn’t earn it.

Prakash RP: 'On The Definition of Communism'

Source:Communist Party USA? 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Communism is the abolition of the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the abolition of the exploitation of women by men as well. And with the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and women by men, the exploiting class ceases to exist, consequent on which its very opposite number, the class of the exploited, also disappears. Communism also means the abolition of the commodity economy, which ensures the perfectly equitable distribution of wealth and income, with which both the rich and the poor as well as the super-rich and the abjectly poor become nonexistent too. Thus, Communism is also the abolition of classes. 

Communism does away with the production for profit. The communist mode of production is the production for consumption. Goods and services produced under the communist mode of production are not commodities. They are meant for consumption alone. They are not by any manner of means meant for sale, i.e. for making money. In actual fact, Communism does away with all buying and selling operations, hence all markets, i.e. places meant for buying and selling, and money too. Communism is the abolition of both the institution of matrimony and its opposite public prostitution. Communism also abolishes both overwork and idleness ( both enforced and wilful ). And above all, Communism creates an environment that fits in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living."  

From Praka Shrp 

"First episode in a series. Feel free to suggest improvements.

In this episode we'll define some terms.

Socialism:

-Worker Control of the means of production

-Worker Ownership of the means of production

-A socialist state is a state where working class has taken state power and the means of production are owned in common

Communism:

-A higher stage of socialism

-Stateless(as society progresses the state "withers" away. This will be discussed in a later episode)

-Super abundance of resources." 

Source:Marxist-Leninist Theory- the People's Republic of China.

From Marxist-Leninist Theory

I think I got the broader goals of what communism is supposed to be now. That there should be no profits, that a country is a community, which is where Communist comes from. That the whole community should literally share everything with out anyone owning anything. So that would eliminate property rights all together and essentially make everything in society under the ownership of the central communist state. The state, would even own someone’s home where they live. The state, would own our cars and even clothes. No such thing as a private sector. Why? Because there’s no such thing as property rights.

So even in true communist state, things like opposition parties would be outlawed. Why? Because at least in America the state doesn’t own political parties. They’re own and run by private individuals. So if Prakash RP, a self-described Communist and his definition of communism is correct, plus what I just wrote about communism, based on what I read from his blog, how does this version of communism any different from the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China before they legalized private property and ownership. 

Same thing with the Communist Republic of China before they went capitalist and brought private enterprise to their economy about ten years ago. Which is just one of the reasons why America and Cuba have restarted diplomatic relations.

If you’re familiar with the Reverend Jim Jones and his People’s Temple from the 1970s and their big field trip to Guyana in the 1970s, you know that is exactly the type of state he tried to create there with his so-called Jonestown. A state where the people would live off the land and live to serve each other and share everything that they gain with each other from off the land. 

Now of course Jones turned into a brutal paranoid dictator and perhaps responsible for the deaths of a thousand innocent people down there. But that is what we wanted Jonestown to be at least in the beginning. 

This communitarian communistic even environment where there would be no profits and selfishness. Again, how is that type of economic system different from what we use to see from Russia, China, Cuba and still today with North Korea?

TIME Magazine: Lilly Rothman: See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970

Source:TIME Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society. Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s. American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing. You would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine. But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.
Source:CNN

Dandelion Salad: Elizabeth Schulte- 'Socialism According to Eugene V. Debbs'

Source:Dandelion Salad- Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debbs.

Source:The New Democrat 

"What did the man who Bernie Sanders today claims as his personal hero really stand for? Elizabeth Schulte tells the story of American socialism’s best-known figure.

IT’S NOT your typical presidential candidate who identifies as a socialist, but Bernie Sanders does. A poster of Eugene V. Debs, the popular Socialist Party leader of the early 20th century, hangs on his office wall as a tribute to Sanders’ self-proclaimed hero.

Like Debs, who ran for president five times, Sanders is also running for president. But that, my friends, is where the similarities end.

The socialism of Bernie Sanders—who says he’s running as a Democrat to shift the debate to the left–is fundamentally different from that of Eugene Debs, who committed his life to spreading the ideas of revolutionary socialism. Sanders is promoting something that falls far, far short of the fundamental change that Debs fought for. Sanders relegates socialism to the realm of nice ideas that can be talked about, but never really be implemented—while he accepts what little the Democratic Party is willing to concede.

For Sanders, the working class is a “constituency,” a backdrop to the political campaigns he runs and the legislative work he does. For Debs, the working class was in the foreground of everything he hope to achieve—because he believed, as a convinced Marxist, that workers have to make the fundamental and lasting transformation that he called socialism." 

From Dandelion Salad

So I guess at least according to Elizabeth Schulte, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Eugene Debs and to the left of Progressive’s Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. And I’ll explain what I mean by that.

Eugene Debbs, Marxist, had he ever became President of the United States and had the support of Congress, would’ve outlawed capitalism, private enterprise and that includes property rights. Perhaps, but not guaranteed, just short of taking people’s personal ownership of their personal property away from. Meaning an individual, could own their own home and car (to use as examples) but those things would’ve been made by state-owned companies.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist: Democratic Socialists, believe in at least a certain level of personal autonomy. That includes both personal and economic freedom. That even includes the ability to vote for opposition parties and opposition parties that are on the other side of the political spectrum. 

Bernie, doesn’t have a problem with private enterprise and even capitalism. Just how the resources and income and distributed. So if you’re doing well in America through the private sector, great. According to Bernie, but you’re going to pay enough in taxes to see that those who are struggling are also taken care of.

Bernie Sanders, is not running to completely change the American economic system and destroy the liberal capitalist model, our liberalized economic system, that has liberated so many people out of poverty in America. 

What Senator Sanders wants to do is add a socialist component to our liberal economic system built around a large central government. To see that no one has to go without and live in poverty. As well as invest in our American capitalist private enterprise economy. Things like education, infrastructure, energy, immigration, better trade deals according to Bernie. So that more Americans can succeed in our private sector. And not have to live off of public assistance to take care of them.

Prakash RP: A Defence of Communism

Source:Prakash RP-

Source:The New Democrat

Communism, at least in how its been practiced up until the last thirty-years, or so with the Soviet Union collapsing and the People’s Republic of China moving to a form of state capitalism and the same thing with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba, has been a government philosophy built around a big centralized state. That the central state, is the country and owns the country and everyone inside of the country are essentially subjects of the central state. With the central state being responsible for the welfare of the people and taking care of the people. While at the same time preserving the communist state. Even if that means locking people up and killing them if they are seen as threats to the communist regime.

Now if this if the definition of communism, then I believe only a Communist, or Marxist could defend that. But lets say I’m wrong about what communism is and I don’t consider myself to be an expert on communism. And that it really is something a lot more positive than that. And a communist state, is not what we’ve seen North Korea collapse into. Keep in mind, the word communist comes from community. It that a country is a community and that members of that community share with each other for the betterment of society as a whole. So no one has to go with out, or has too much. And that the central government, is in charge of making sure that everyone has what they need to live well in that community. That they have enough money, food, housing, health care, education, etc.

But if my second definition of communism is correct and the first one is wrong, then what makes communism better, or different from socialism? If the difference between a Communist and Socialist, that the Socialist tends to be more democratically oriented? That they believe in multi-party systems and elections? A list of both welfare and individual rights and that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs? That the Communist, believes in the welfare of their people and that everyone should be taken care of. But is so in love with themselves and their political system, that they believe they are entitled to absolute power and don’t deserve to have any opposition whatsoever?

If I’m wrong about the differences between a Socialist and I mean Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to use as an example and a Marxist like Fidel Castro, or someone like that and that Communists, do believe in at least a certain level of both personal and economic autonomy, which means freedom at least in America, then why do you need both socialism and communism, if they’re the same thing? And I welcome anyone who actually understands communism to answer them on this piece. My guess is they aren’t the same thing. That their good reasons to be a Socialist, because again Socialists believe in at least a certain level of democracy and freedom. Both personal and economic freedom. As we see with Bernie Sanders and social democracies in Europe.
Source:British Pathe