Say No To Democide: Free Speech or Offensive Speech: Should We Let Haters Speak?

Source:The New Democrat- Free speech is welcome in a free society. 

Source:The New Democrat

To put to bluntly, if you don’t like free speech, you’re probably not a fan of liberal democracy and sure as hell not America as well. The First Amendment, is not something you can mess with simply because you don’t like the opposition and what they have to say, or you’re frustrated about their ability to communicate their message and attract followers. Which is how today’s so-called Progressives feel about Fox News, right-wing talk radio to use as examples. And launching campaigns to get those organizations shut down and shut up.

Free speech, just doesn’t protect Americans right to be kind, intelligent and enlightened. But it protects our right to free speech and that even includes the right to say stupid things and believe garbage, to be nice that no intelligent person could ever believe as the truth. I mean if you actually look at the First Amendment, what does it say? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” So where do you see in that where Congress could pass a law banning offensive speech in America?

One of the great things about living in a liberal democracy, or liberalized society, is the ability to put all the information, facts and views out there. Where everyone can be heard and where we know where everyone stands. The right to free speech doesn’t entitle anyone to respect. You can pretty much say whatever you want short of harassing, libeling and inciting violence. And then the public gets to figure out whose right and whose wrong. Whose smart, whose stupid, whose tolerant and whose hateful. With public consequences coming from the people as far as what we say. Short of actually shutting people up and giving them governmental sanctions for what they say.

So the answer to the question should we let haters speak is sort of a moot question. Because we already do and there isn’t a hell of a lot that can be do about that short of amending the First Amendment. Which is almost impossible to do anyway, but again if you’re a fan of free speech and the First Amendment which all Liberals are including myself, that is exactly how it should be. If you’re not a Liberal and you’re not a fan of free speech and would prefer collective speech with a so-called progressive enlightened committee deciding what is proper and what isn’t proper when it comes to speech, then you have a big problem with free speech. And you’re liberal credentials are probably non-existent.
Source:Yoo Jay

The Young Turks: 'Al Gore, Breathable Booze & Shade Balls'

Source:The Young Turks- TCM film historian and sometimes TYT political analyst Ben Mankiewicz. A much better film historian than political analyst, but he's also an excellent political satirist.

Source:The Daily Review

"A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from August 14, 2015. For more go to:The Young Turks. 

Cenk, Ben, Iadarola, and Richard Eskow hosting today. The outside possibility of Al Gore jumping into the presidential race is being leaked, despite the fact that his spokesperson denied it. Cenk doesn’t believe that it’s completely out of the question. Discussion of who would be hurt the most by Gore entering the race.

A breathable bar in London allows patrons to take in their alcohol via the mist in the air filling the bar. The humidity is set at 140% and a moody pop electro soundtrack playing. The LA Reservoir will use 96 million reflective balls to sit on top of the water there to prevent much of the water from evaporating. Ball jokes throughout." 

From The Young Turks

Al Gore for president? Why, would be my question about that. A simple one word question about that. "Vote for Al Gore for president, again and I"ll do..." What, exactly?

Al Gore, the man who lost the presidency to a college frat brat, who thought he was still at Yale and perhaps failed his freshmen year 22 years in a row and suddenly wakes up at the age of 40 and realizes he now has kids, is married and needs a full-time job that will support his family. Who gets into politics, because his father is George H.W. Bush. And I'm speaking about George W. Bush of course.

Al Gore, is not Dick Nixon, or even Bill Clinton. He's someone whose more than capable of being happy in the private sector and making a lot of money and speaking about issues that he cares about and writing about them.

Gore wanted to be president in the 1980s and 1990s, which is why he runs in 2000 and as Vice President to a very popular President Clinton and with almost no opposition in the party to him, he had the perfect opportunity to be President of the United States, but he blew it. It took him about six months to figure out what type of presidential campaign he was going to run in 2000.

If Al Gore, wants to be Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of State, National Security Director, by all means he's qualified for any of those positions and would serve the next Democratic president very well.

But run again for president when the avenue to get there is not clear unlike in 2000 when you were a heavy favorite to beat Joe Average who lives on Main street in Smithville, whose a swell kind of guy and everything and everyone's favorite drinking partner at the local tavern and hardest worker at the factory (when he's sober) and I'm thinking of George W. Bush obviously as far as what G.W. brought to that campaign as far as qualifications: doesn't make sense to me. 

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: Jerry Seinfeld Caught By The Sensitivity Police

Source:The Young Turks talking about comedian Jerry Seinfeld: "What's the deal with the Political Correctness Police? I thought this was America." Not sure if Jerry Seinfeld actually said that, or not.

Source:The New Democrat

Damn! I actually agree with both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur on the same show, about the same topic. They both just scored a touchdown and converted a two-point conversion in the liberal column for me. Maybe they aren’t as radical and socialist as I give them credit, or blame for. Depending on your perspective. It would be one thing if Jerry Seinfeld was just talking to comedians of one race, in this case Caucasian, because that is the only people he wants to talk to. But that is not what this is about. He interviews people he thinks are funny. And in this case the recent comedians he spoke to, all happened to be Caucasian.

It would be one thing if Jerry said and I can call him Jerry since I’m his German nephew whose not a Nazi, it would be one thing if Jerry said, “those African-Americans, always bitching about how life is tough in America. They can’t take a joke. I’ve seen Marxist dictators with bigger sense of humors. I know this since I interviewed them. If they think they got it so bad in America, why don’t they go back to Africa.” But he didn’t say anything like that and is not talking to people based on race, or ethnicity. He simply wants to talk to people who make him laugh. This current group he found just happen to all be from the same race.

And oh by the way, if lets say Chris Rock was doing a show and he only interviewed African-American male comedians, no one would be making an issue of this. Well maybe Breitbart, or Fox News. This same argument could be made against affirmative action. Why not just go where the talent is and just judge people as individuals and let the most qualified people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, get the best jobs. And leave whatever is left for the wannabes of all races, ethnicities, male, female, who gives a damn! There times when one group of people, fill in the blank which group that is, looks a little better than other groups as far as having their members being part of what’s happening in America. That is the way freedom and private enterprise works.

Cenk Uygur made another great point and its the boy who cried wolf analogy. That real racism, is racism. When people are being denied access in life and given harsher treatment simply because of their race, that’s racism. But when you try to apply that label to anything you can think of to try to make people especially who aren’t minorities in this country, look like bigots and have no real evidence of the charge that you’re making, you become the boy, or girl who cries wolf. You end up looking worst than real bigots and sure as hell than the person that you want to look like a bigot. Its like swinging for the fences, to use a baseball analogy, when you’re a 150 pound shortstop who has never a hit a home run in your life, even in Little League. And every part of the outfield is at least 400 feet away. It doesn’t work.

Timothy Taylor: 'States as The Laboratories of Democracy: An Historical Note'

Source:The New Democrat- U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Perhaps the most famous metaphor defending the virtues of US federalism is that states can act as laboratories of democracy: that is,  states can enact a range of policies, and can then learn from the experiences of other states. The phrase was coined by Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1932 Supreme Court case of... 

From Timothy Taylor 

U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." 

From the Legal Information Institute 

"Nick Gillespie (Reason.com) discusses federalism. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen- John Stossel talking to Reason Magazine editor Nick Gillespie.

From Liberty Pen

I guess one of the advantages of living in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people that has fifty states, is that it gives you this great opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. And what works and where it works and what doesn’t and where it doesn’t work. That is the beauty of a Federal Republic. 

We’re still one country as Progressives and Social Democrats like to say, which is true of course. But within that country you have all of these states, counties and cities, that are not just there, unlike let's says the United Kingdom, which has a unitarian national government, but they have real say over their own affairs within their own jurisdiction.

Federalism, doesn’t mean that states have all the power and that the Feds are just responsible for national security, foreign affairs, trade, and the currency. And it also doesn’t mean that the Feds have most if not all the power. 

If we had one superstate with most of the power in the national government, we wouldn’t have a Federal system and wouldn’t be a Federal Republic. We would be a unitarian state and perhaps not even a republic. 

Federalism, simply defines the roles of the Feds, states and localities in what each level of government is responsible for doing. The Feds, are primarily responsible for national security, foreign affairs, but are also responsible for homeland security, interstate crime, and commerce.

The states and localities, are primarily responsible for what happens in their own jurisdiction. Infrastructure, education, law enforcement, regulating and developing their economies, like encouraging investment prosecuting predatory behavior (To use as examples) But the Feds have a role here in how these issues relate to the country as well. Not to run them for the states and localities and take over them, but to offer input and resources. And regulate interstate commerce and trade and prosecute interstate crimes. 

And under a federalist system like this, you get to see what works and what doesn’t and where. As it relates to education, social insurance for people in need, economic development, energy, criminal justice and a lot of other areas.

Federalism and the Federal Republic, is essentially locked in stone in America. I’ve argued in the past that what today’s so-called Progressives (Social Democrats, really) for them to accomplish what they want to do politically in America, they would need several constitutional amendments, if not rewrite it, or eliminate it. Because they would like to see a lot more power in America transferred from the private sector and states, to the Federal Government. As it relates to education, current social insurance programs and would like to create a superstate in America in the form of a welfare state that would be completely managed by Washington. But even people in their ranks like Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, aren’t looking to break up our federalist system.

Myself, I’m a Liberal Federalist, which means that I might not agree with everything that a state is doing, but as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights when it comes to their own laws and policies. 

So for example, if Georgia wants private school vouchers and passes that law, I’m not a fan of private school vouchers, but they are within their rights to do that. But if they passed a law that says certain people can’t go to certain public schools, because of their race, ethnicity, or religion, they would obviously be violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the Georgia State Constitution as well.

We have a U.S. Constitution, that is like the official rule book for American government at all levels. And as long as government is following the rules of the rulebook, they are within their rights. And if the people don’t like how their government is playing (so to speak) they can always fire them and replace them with people that they believe will represent them better. That is where liberal democracy comes into play in our Federal system. Which is why I call the United States a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We’re not really one, or the other, but a free society and state that operates under both systems into one bigger system.

Oxford Union: Jeremy Corbyn- 'Socialism Does Work'

Source:Oxford Union- UK Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Jeremy Corbyn addresses the issue of healthcare saying that the socialist and communist thinkers of the 19th Century had a vision that healthcare should be available to all people, this had lead to the NHS today and is something we should be proud of. He concludes by saying the chamber should vote in favour of equality. 

Filmed on Thursday 28th November 2013

MOTION: This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.

RESULT: Motion Defeated." 

From the Oxford Union

Wow! My first opportunity to blog about Jeremy Corbyn, who may end up being the next Leader of the Opposition in Britain next month. I’m really only interested in democratic socialism when it comes to socialism. Marxism, I see as another ideology and an extreme form of statism as it relates to social, economic and political policy. 

Democratic Socialists, are not Marxists, otherwise they would be Marxists. And when you think of socialism, you should think of the European Union, especially the Anglo-Saxon states like Britain and look at the Nordic states in Scandinavia. When you think of Marxism, look at the old Soviet Union. And look at North Korea today.

For me at least, it’s not a question of whether socialism works, not, but how far you go with it. How much do you want centralized with the national government. With the state, or provincial government’s doing less, as well as the local government’s and private sector doing less. Because every developed democratic country in the world has a level of socialism in their national government at least. 

Democratic socialism, is really about having a big welfare state and big centralized national government, to see to it that no one in society has to go without. And that the central government is responsible for a lot of the basic human services in life. But that the welfare state is essentially funded by a large private sector. Yes, capitalism and private enterprise.

This debate is not whether you should have a command and control Marxist state-owned economy. Or do you want the entire economy to be left in the hands of the private sector. With government only being left with national security, foreign policy, national reserve and law enforcement. 

This is a debate about how much do you want government doing for the people. How big you want the central state to be versus the state/provincial government’s, local government’s and private sector. But that there is a private sector, because even Democratic Socialists know that Marxism doesn’t work. If it did, the Soviet Union would still be in business today. Cuba, wouldn’t have started privatizing parts of their economy and North Korea, wouldn’t be the hell hole that it is.

The Washington Monthly: Martin Longman- 'White House Heroin Initiative is a Start'

Source:Washington Monthly- Everyone should say no to heroin. But they shouldn't be in prison for saying yes to heroin.

Source:The New Democrat

"I’m glad the White House is finally moving on the heroin/opioid epidemic in this country, and I think what they’re going to announce tomorrow morning is a good start, for the most part. What I think is needed, however, is much more public input, particularly from folks who are on the ground trying not just to interdict the trade in opioids, but from the ones who are taking responsibility for trying to help people kick and keep addicts alive."

From Washington Monthly

"EDGARTOWN, Mass. (AP) -- The White House is launching a new  million initiative to combat heroin use and trafficking of the drug, particularly in states along the East Coast. About half of the money will fund a program to link public health and law enforcement agencies, with the goal of prioritizing treatment for drug users over punishments. Monday's announcement comes amid a spike in heroin use and deaths in the United States. The rise in heroin use has become a frequent topic in the 2016 presidential campaign. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton recently held a forum in New Hampshire on drug addiction, an issue she said voters have been frequently raising as she's campaigned in the early voting state."

Source:Local 12- Chief Bill Kramer, of the Norwood Police.

From Local 12

This is really something that we should’ve been doing since the so-called War on Drugs started in 1971. But then had we of done that, then maybe the War on Drugs is never started. Wait, that would’ve actually been a great thing. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of people we wouldn’t have in prison today. And instead of collecting tax dollars, instead they’re getting cleaned and paying into the system instead. What I’m getting at is not a question of whether this would be a good idea or not. That is treating non-drug selling drug offenders as addicts and putting them in rehab instead of jail. But the question is like any government initiative especially when budgets are tight, is how you pay for it.

Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which I believe I’ve made clear on this blog. But it does have at least three major shortfalls. Not creating a public option for Medicare. So non-seniors, could pay into Medicare along with their employers and use that as their health insurance. And it would have been their option, not mandate. Dealing with mental health care and not fulling paying for our mental health care system in this country. Had we done that, I believe we would have fewer shootings today. Because those shooters would have been in a mental hospital getting the help that they need. And the other has to do with drug rehab and the War on Drugs.

You put drug addicts into rehab and people who are caught in possession of heroin, cocaine, or meth, in halfway houses, if they’re not addicts instead of jail, or prison and same thing with small time drug dealers, we would have a mentally and physically healthier country. We would also have a hell of a lot fewer people in the criminal justice system. Instead they would be in the health care system as it as to do with drug abuse. And abusing alcohol, tobacco and legal medications, is also abusing drugs. Only you don’t go to jail for abusing those drugs if that’s all you’re doing. But you do make a mess of your life that others may have to pay for.

I think the way we finance drug rehab in America, is the same way we could finance mental health. Which is though the health insurance system both private and public. Require all public and private health insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, to cover mental health and drug rehab. I would even be happy raise the payroll tax and cut the corporate tax to pay for this. So people don’t lose other benefits as a result. And tell illegal drug users, that they’re going to rehab instead of jail. And they successfully complete the program. They won’t get a criminal record as a result. Instead of treating essentially mental patients, which addicts are in a way, like felons.

Public Domain Footage: Robert F. Kennedy Speech at Columbia University (1964)

Source:Public Domain Footage- Robert F. Kennedy running for U.S. Senate in 1964.

Source:The New Democrat

Robert F. Kennedy, running for U.S. Senate in 1964 and not to replace one of his brothers in Massachusetts, but to run for Senate in New York. A great opportunity for Bobby Kennedy as well in 1964. Because Senator Ken Keating, from New York wasn’t very popular in New York. President Lyndon Johnson, was going to win New York in a landslide. And here is where Bobby Kennedy, had an opportunity to jump on Lyndon’s coattails and take a seat in the U.S. Senate in the following Congress.

I believe Kennedy, answered the carpetbagger question very well. Of course with his Irish-Boston accent, he didn’t sound very New York. Either from New York City, or upstate like in Buffalo, or some place. But he grew up in New York City and spent most of his professional career in Washington and had a home in New York. This is not like Hillary Clinton, who grew up in Chicago and spent a lot of her professional career in Arkansas with her husband and then a New York Senate seat opens up in 2000 and she decides she’s going to be the next U.S. Senator from New York. A state where she didn’t have any roots in going in.

I think Bobby Kennedy, answered the presidential question very well to. You can’t run for both President and U.S. Senate at the same time. At least in most states and that would be borderline impossible to do so before you’re actually in the Senate. Kennedy, was clearly a Senate candidate in 1964 for New York. So that was the seat and race he was focused on. And again in 1964, LBJ looked like he would probably run for reelection in 1968 and perhaps even be popular. RFK and LBJ, were both Democrats. So as RFK said, 1972 eight years after 1964 would’ve been the earliest that he could run for president.

Bobby Kennedy’s politics, might have changed a bit from 1964 to 1967-68. But that had to do with the Vietnam War and growing poverty and racial division in America in the late 1960s. But in 1964, I believe RFK was still an establishment Center-Left Liberal Democrat like his brother Jack. And you could argue that he moved left from that by 1967. But in 1964 he was running for U.S. Senate essentially to continue the vision and goals of President Kennedy. Expanding freedom and opportunity to all Americans and dealing with civil rights, equal rights and equality of opportunity for the whole country.