The Rubin Report: Lalo Dagach and Dave Rubin: Regressives, Religion & Politics

Source:The Rubin Report-

Source:The Daily Review

Just to respond to Lalo Dagach’s question about what should Liberals do (and I mean real Liberals) when the question is about what should be done when it’s a question of tolerance or standing up for liberal values. Like equal rights and women being treated equally and not worst under law. The answer to that is pretty easy. The Liberal always stands up for liberal values. Liberal values mean nothing when Liberals don’t stand up for them.

Even if that means telling people that they’re wrong and they have real serious regressive faults. Where a lot of people and in this case women, are hurt from a result of religious authoritarianism in the Middle East. When pointing out the real faults of people becomes a form of bigotry, then we’re in real trouble. You might as well move to North Korean and oh by the way, leave all your personal-decision making and individualism there, because that won’t be tolerated there. If you want to live in a place where the truth doesn’t matter, because someone might be offended by it.

Nothing bigoted about the truth. Especially when the truth is negative, because without negative truth and facts we would never be able to improve ourselves. Because someone is always giving up medals for showing up and participating when life is so much more than that and being there is just the beginning. When instead of getting participation medals you need a verbal slap in the face. And for someone to tell us, ‘you fucked up buddy and this is where you come up short and this is what you should’ve been doing all along instead.’

Now these Far-Left Commie Regressive’s who has this Che Guevara notion or wherever the hell they got it that says putting down or critiquing non-Caucasian-Christians, especially Anglo-Saxon Christians, is a form of bigotry even when the critic is correct, what are they smoking? And can I get some of that when I need to take a break from reality? What’s progressive about putting now Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they show bigotry against women and gays, but you ignore the exact same things that happen in the Middle East and in some cases even worst. Like being put to death simply for being gay and sometimes for not being a Muslin.

I’ve argued this before, but Liberals believe in liberal values. I know, that’s just commonsense and now I’m going to tell you that business people believe in enterprise and Vince Lombardi believed in the power sweep and Air Force generals believe in a good air attack and etc. But what’s the point of liberal values if Liberals don’t believe in them. People have the right to call themselves whatever the hell they want. If a red-haired Irishmen wants to call himself Frank Sinatra or Jesus Christ, who am I to say he can’t.

But if you want to be taken seriously for what you say you are then you have to believe in the values of your self-identification. You’re not a Liberal if you don’t believe in liberal values and tolerance is just one of them. Liberalism is based on factually based evidence and the truth. And the first liberal value if free speech. And when you say certain things shouldn’t be allowed to be said even when they’re true, because they may tend to offend, you’re not being liberal.

POLITICO Magazine: Paul Starr: Why Democrats Should Beware Bernie Sanders’ Socialism

Source:Democratic Socialists of America with a look at U.S. Senate Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

The main point I get from Paul Starr’s column are the differences between socialism and liberalism. And they’re not the same thing whether you’re talking about communism which of course is different from liberalism. Because liberalism is based on individual rights and equality of opportunity. Communism is based on the collective and what is best is for everyone in society generally. Or democratic socialism which again is based on the collective, but through democratic means. Instead of having the state completely in control of society.

Hillary Clinton actually gave a great definition of what economic liberalism is at the South Carolina townhall on Tuesday. Where she said she wants an economy where everyone can succeed and make the most out of their potential and be able to enjoy the rewards of that. I’m paraphrasing here, but that is very close. Socialists again are interested in welfare rights and the collective. An economy where no one has to go without the necessities to live well in life and where no one who works should have to live in poverty. Socialists aren’t so much interested in individual opportunity, as they are economic equality where everyone is the same and no one is rich or poor. Because they believe individual freedom leads to income inequality and people becoming super rich and they see that as bad things.

What Bernie Sanders wants to do is apply the Scandinavian economic model to the United States. The whole region of Scandinavia is roughly twenty-five-million people. With a lot of land and a lot of natural resources, including resources that Social Democrats tend not to be in favor of like oil and gas. And they invest heavily in those resources and use them to finance their welfare states. Along with high income and consumption taxes, but as Paul Starr said low taxes on capital and business, trade. Senator Sanders wants to bring the Scandinavian model of taxation and welfare, to a country of three-hundred-twenty-million people that still imports oil and gas to power this huge country. But have taxes in general much higher than Nordic Socialists would ever even dream of.

Socialists are interested in Utopia and creating some perfect world where there’s no such things as sickness, poverty, war, bigotry, crime, etc. Liberals want the real world to work for as many people as humanly possible. And for everyone to be able to live their own dream in life and be productive and live in freedom. Quality education and infrastructure for all. a tax system that encourages economic success, a safety net that empower people to get on their feet and not to live off of taxpayers indefinitely, a regulatory state that protects workers and consumers, as well as business’s from predators. But doesn’t try to protect people from themselves. Which is why Liberals are still Center-Left in America, but Center-Right in Europe and other places. While Socialists are still considered Far-Left in America. Because of their heavy reliance on central planning and central government.

The Politics of Writing: 'The Value of Comedy'

Source:IZ Quotes- U.S. Senator (Democrat, Minnesota) and political satirist Al Franken.

Source:The Daily Review

"Comedy is often in our lives for reasons we don’t stop to think about. There’s comedic movies, stand up comedians,  television shows, and then there’s just those funny people we l…’

From The Politics of Writing 

“Bill Maher and John Cleese discuss the comedic value of human stupidity, political incorrectness and religious fundamentalism in this clip from November 21, 2014.” 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- John Cleese making the case for free speech.

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I agree with most of what this blogger said. Who will go nameless simply, because the blogger doesn’t have a name. (My first joke) But I would put it different and I seem to be doing that a lot lately when I share other people’s pieces. The value of comedy is to make people laugh especially if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t going well for them.

I do that all the time to make people feel better. Someone tells me they lose their job and I’ll ask them: “Where did you lose it? Maybe you should try to look for it. Don’t worry, you’ll find another one and a better one. And will do a better job of hanging on to it.” And this is sort of extreme example, but that’s my point. Comedy should make people feel better even if it’s just for a moment before reality kicks back in.

I love comedy about life (as if there is any other comedy) but that is what funny people do. They share stories about what’s going on in their own life and what’s going on in the world and look for the comedic angle. Anyone whose spent more than five-minutes in America knows there’s always something to make fun of. Take our U.S. Congress, to use as an example: The oldest comedy club in America and the National Comedy Club going back to 1776.

If you can’t find something funny about Congress, you either never drink, or are broth blind and death at the same time. Perhaps you live as a tomato while impersonating a human being and you’re simply not aware of the world that is right in front of your own face. Take the cloture rule in the Senate where 41 votes beats 59. Anyone familiar with math knows that 59 is more than 41. But not in the U.S. Senate and that is just one funny example about Congress.

The only thing about comedy when it comes to life and current affairs is that first it has to be funny and then it has to be accurate. Or at least not out of the ballpark where it doesn’t make sense. Like if you’re going to make a fat joke about someone, at least have the decency and intelligence to know that person is actually fat, meaning clearly overweight. And not just a large, muscular ,person, who is very curvy.

There are plenty of three-hundred-pound football players who are just very big, because they have huge bones and are incredibly strong and can probably bench press someone’s car. (Hey, Yugo and Beatles are still cars) If you’re going to make a joke a politician, it should make sense and be in the ballpark. Make fun of Donald Trump, because any joke about him is probably true at this point.

When I finally get off the computer and done at my office and have some time to do things that have nothing to do with writing and blogging, generally the first thing I do is eat and try to relax. But after that I’m generally looking for something funny to watch. Not looking to read a book unless it’s something that I’m about to blog about.

Besides half of my job revolves around reading other people’s material anyway. I just want to relax and laugh at something that had nothing to do with my day and job. That is the value of comedy. That little escape that tells you that there’s another world out there that’s much different from your reality. And a chance to just kick back and take a deep breath. Before I have to get back to work.

Democratic Socialists USA: 'Social and Economic Bill of Rights'

Source:Democratic Socialists USA- If Democratic Socialists were ever in charge of anything in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Americans are familiar with the language of political and civil rights – one person, one voice, one vote; equal treatment before the law. We are less familiar with the justification for the social rights that have been at the center of our great political and social movements over the last century. For all citizens to flourish in a democratic society, they must be guaranteed such basic human needs as high-quality education, health care and security in old age. These goods are provided to every member of most democratic societies not by purchase on the private market, but through equitably financed, high-quality public goods and social insurance."  

From Democratic Socialists USA 

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty... 

Source:Peace Takes Courage- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) talking about a proposed Economic Bill of Rights, in 1944.

From Peace Takes Courage

When you look at the New Deal from President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, you see the creation of the American public safety net. 

Things like retirement insurance, which is what Social Security is. 

Unemployment Insurance, for people who lose their jobs. 

Welfare Insurance for people who don't have real skills and also have kids. 

Public Housing for people who can't afford a home. 

And there were other social programs and protections like that and go up to the Great Society of the 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson and you see programs that build on the New Deal with more help for the poor. Medicaid, medical insurance for low-income workers and non-workers who aren't retired yet. Medicare for all retired seniors and seniors who haven't retired yet and other programs.

In 1944-45, President Roosevelt introduced what he called the Economic Bill of Rights. Which was phase two of his New Deal which would have gone much further than simple  social economic insurance, but to move us to a Scandinavian welfare state. 

Health insurance for everyone, a guaranteed quality education from government, guaranteed retirement income, guaranteed good jobs. If people can't find a job, then government would give them one working for the government. 

President Harry Truman had similar proposals in what he called the Fair Deal in the late 1940s.  But by the time Lyndon Johnson becomes president in 1963 and he moves to his Great Society agenda in 1964, he's not looking at the Scandinavian welfare state as the economic model for America. But more social insurance to deal with poverty. Not a welfare state to manage everyone's lives for them.

What Democratic Socialists USA and other democratic socialist and social democratic groups and parties would do in America, is create that Scandinavian welfare state for America. To go way past the safety net and import Denmark or Sweden as far as our economic model. 

The whole idea of the safety net is a social insurance system for people who need it when they fall down in the private enterprise system. The welfare state is there to take care of everyone regardless of income level. 

Welfare state- Government provided education for everyone, government provided health care for everyone, government provided health insurance for everyone, government provided retirement for everyone, government provided leave for everyone, etc. All of these programs would become universal regardless of income level in a democratic socialist model.

So when I hear things like Economic Bill of Rights, I hear about government guarantees so people don't have to starve, go homeless, go without health care, always will have a job even if it is working for government. At least that is the plan under these proposals and I would argue about whether we should do this or not. And instead offer an alternative that is based on empowering more Americans to have the skills to get the jobs and make the money to have the freedom to make the decisions for themselves in the private market. 

But what Democratic Socialists advocate that everyone shouldn't have to go without and they would argue the way to guarantee that is to have the central government not as the last provider of human services, but the sole provider. Which is a much different economic philosophy from what Americans are use to seeing.

TruthDig: Jim Sleeper: 'The Blame The Campus Far-Leftists Campaign Aims at Yale'

Source:TruthDig- Welcome to Yale, which you would think would be an institution that promotes free thought and speech, since it's a college where people are supposed to learn.

Source:The Daily Review

"On February 7 The New York Times published two jaw-droppingly credulous and/or duplicitous accounts, linked below, of Yale childhood psychologist and student-residence associate master Erika Christakis’ supposed martyrdom on the altar of free speech by censorious liberal students and colleagues. The truth is that a national campaign to blame campus distempers on politically correct liberals had found yet another target in angry students and anxious administrators and an unlikely heroine in Christakis. The Times and too many well-meaning professors have gone along for the ride. If you think that our political commentariat has lost its compass along with our party establishments, wait till you see what writers about colleges are missing, as are the colleges themselves."

From TruthDig

"As part of a nationwide protest and discussion of what is acceptable on college campuses, a Yale professor sent a letter out asking is it ever okay to be provocative or even offensive. John and Hannah discuss if this letter led to her resignation from the university. Let us know what you think about her resigning and the current state of political correctness on college campuses."

Source:Think Tank- another victim of PC?

From Think Tank

I'll put it this way: if you are a far-leftist in America, (Democratic Socialist or otherwise) you believe you have (even though it's not written anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or in any statue of law) not to be offended by someone who you disagree with. It's like they woke up one day and found themselves living in another country (or planet) thinking they're still home. They literally believe that they have a right that simply doesn't exist, which is to hear and see things that they don't like. That's what I think of this photo and caption.

Source:The Daily Review- a campus far-leftist partying like it's still 1969.

I swear to God (even as an Agnostic) that the technological revolution of the last 20-25 years has really made America a lot dumber. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that America’s public education system fas fallen in the same time. And keep in mind America elected Dan Quayle Vice President in 1988 and Floridian Jews accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan for President in 2000. So that’s pretty stupid and then add America went to war with Iraq over bogus (to be kind) evidence in 2003. 

But take that up more than ten years and we now have a generation of Americans who believe that minority Americans have a right to not be offended and critiqued. Even though they live in a liberal democracy that has a guaranteed constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment. 

I guess Millennials were too busy texting their classmate who was sitting next to them, or got lost at Starbucks when they should have been learning about the U.S. Constitution. What the hell are you doing at college and drowning in student loans (because you never learned how to swim) if you don’t like debate and you can’t handle politics that go against your own?

God (again, I'm Agnostic) help us if any of these Millennial’s ever become constitutional lawyers. Because they’ll look at the Constitution based on how they want it to read. Where their political correctness is the law of the land and there’s no such thing as Freedom of Speech, if it goes against their politics. Where the Right to Privacy doesn’t exist if people are engaged in behavior they disapprove of. 

I mean if I’m in college right now and I know I’m in student debt somewhere around fifty-thousand-dollars or more by the time I graduate, I’m busting my own ass (not my professor’s) to graduate and to learn as much about America and how the real world actually is. Not how I want it to be so I don’t think everything is swell (to use a 1950s term) when I enter the world. That I know everything won’t be paradise for me when I leave college.

But that is not the attitude of these Millennial goody two shoes who I guess got lost at a Karl Marx convention and gobbled up everything that Mr. Marx ever wrote and said. And now believe that is how the world should work if not currently works. 

God help us all if these kids ever to bother to graduate. Because they may end up dumber than when they went in, but now they won’t be a threat just to themselves. But if they were to ever get into power they’ll be a threat to anyone who believes in individual freedom both personal and economic. But especially when it comes to Freedom of Speech. But at least they’ll always have the latest smartphone, or computer, I’m sure paid for by someone else. And everything will still be awesome in their little worlds.

The American Prospect: Harold Meyerson: 'Bernie Sanders & The New Left'

Source:The American Prospect- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) campaigning for President of the United States of America. Not Prime Minister of Scandinavia.

Source:The New Democrat

"What's with these kids?

In the wake of the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton supporters are surely wondering how a previously obscure 74-year-old senator seems to have captured the imagination and support of millions of young people. Generations often have distinct political profiles, but seldom, if ever, has a presidential race polarized generations more than that between Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Since exit polls first popped up at the end of the 1960s, we've never seen one quite comparable to the one that emerged from Monday's Iowa Caucuses: Sanders's strength was at its greatest within the youngest age group (84 percent among caucusers under 30) and then declined in each successively older age band. Clinton's, of course, was the reverse: peaking among caucus attendees over 65 at 69 percent and then declining in each successively younger group. Sanders had a clear majority of voters under 45; Clinton, of those over.

A generation gap as wide as the Grand Canyon seems to be opening up in the Democratic Party and American liberalism more generally. To some in the opposing camps, the divisions appear rooted in incompatible ideologies and counterposed strategic conceptions of how to promote the progressive cause. Look more closely, however-as both sides must-and the divide appears less fundamental, less socialism-versus-liberalism, less idealism-versus-pragmatism. The Democratic Party as a whole is moving left, but at two different speeds. What makes these differences seem so intense is less a sharp clash of beliefs, and more that the divisions have emerged in the course of an almost unimaginably high-stakes presidential contest."

From The American Prospect

Back in 2008, when then Senator Barack Obama was running for president, the New-Left in America which were predominantly Millennial’s in their twenties and Gen-Xer’s in their thirties and forties, overwhelmingly supported Senator Obama’s presidential campaign. Why? Because they saw him as one of them, a Socialist. Instead of supporting an actual McGovernite Socialist like Representative Dennis Kucinich, they supported Senator Obama for president.

An obvious case of high school students not doing their homework, or perhaps giving their homework to their dogs and then using that as an excuse for not doing their homework. Go to a bad enough high school and you might pull that off with one of your teachers. But Barack Obama is obviously not a Socialist. Even if the whacked out Tea Party believes otherwise. What President Obama has been, is a true Progressive. In someone who believes in using government to create progress across the board. But is very practical in how to accomplish that progress.

Now, go up eight years later to today and the New-Left has finally found their McGovernite Socialist. Someone who wants to almost completely transform the American economic system short of nationalizing it. Which might be somewhat disappointing for some on the New-Left. As well as Senator Bernie Sanders not being on board when it comes to political correctness, outlawing private ownership of guns and the broader nanny state in general.

If you want to call Bernie a Liberal, fine! But add Socialist to that and you got a Socialist Liberal, whose very liberal on social issues. Meaning someone who believes in limited, if not small government when it comes to personal freedom issues. But someone who is very socialist on economic and foreign policy. Big believer in big centralized national government. With high taxes across the board to finance it.

If somehow Minnesota were to go through an August heat wave next week and see temperatures of a hundred degrees in February and Seattle were to run out of both coffee and water as well during the same week and Uncle Sam were to outlaw all taxation, again in the same week and Bernie Sanders somehow managed to win the Democratic nomination for president in what is still a Center-Left progressive (not socialist) Democratic Party and not the Far-Left Green Party, some of his supporters might actually be disappointed in him.

We’re not talking about a Communist here who wants to outlaw all forms of individual freedom and individualism here. But a Socialist-Liberal or Democratic Socialist, who is down with the New-Left perhaps on 99% of the economic and foreign policy issues. But someone who is a big believer in personal freedom. Which is something for the New-Left to think about. We’re not talking about a Communist candidate for president, but a true Democratic Socialist. Like Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace, or George McGovern.

Timothy Taylor: Twenty Years Since The Welfare Reform of 1996

Source:The New Democrat- President Bill Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat

Tim Taylor, makes some great points about the timing that Welfare to Work was done in 1996. The economy started booming again in 1994. The budget deficit was falling, unemployment was dropping. But we’ve had good economic booms where poverty didn’t fall at all and if anything went up. In the 1980s homelessness, became a national issue. Poverty went up and the prison population boomed. In the 1990s the economy boomed after the 1990-91 recession, unemployment dropped dramatically, crime dropped dramatically and poverty which is the most critical issues in any Welfare reform, also dropped dramatically. Eleven-percent poverty level by 2000. The budget deficit didn’t just fall, but we had four balanced budgets in a row by 2001 and actually started paying down the national debt.

And yes the poverty level in America is now twenty-percent again, but that isn’t because of Welfare to Work. It would be higher without Welfare to Work. You might remember 2008-09 pretty well when we had this little economic disaster called the Great Recession. Which sent middle-income working families into families on Unemployment. You don’t get rich collecting Unemployment Insurance. People on Unemployment Insurance have lost their homes. Plus there was another recession from 2001-02 from another stock market collapse and thanks to 9/11. The only way you get out of poverty which means off of public assistance for non-retired workers is with a good job. You need good skills to get a good job. If you’re a single-parent without good skills you’ll need childcare and health insurance as well. That is all part of Welfare to Work.

As much as today’s so-called Progressives (New-Left in actuality) want to paint Welfare to Work as a racist scheme to kick minority families off of Welfare and force them to fend for themselves, you couldn’t be further from the truth if you were on Planet Pluto. Welfare to Work and going further with that, with more childcare assistance, a higher minimum wage and make it more like 10-12 bucks an hour, forcing neglecting parents to at least take financially responsibility for their kids and making even low-income work pay more than Welfare, are the best things we can do for low-income families. Work should never be an option on public assistance, but instead a requirement. Along with education and childcare, requiring parents, to keep their kids in school, would be big help as well.

Welfare Insurance, or cash payments, is only the first part in a new campaign to defeat poverty. That once you’re on WI you receive it but in a real short-term and take the first job that you’re qualified for. If you didn’t finish high school, you would do that as a condition for receiving Welfare. If you have a high school diploma now you’re in community college, or some other job training. Even if you have a job, but especially if you have a job and would get childcare assistance so you would have the time to get an education and work. So instead of Welfare just being a net that catches people before they end up homeless or in jail or something, it instead is a vehicle to help people move themselves out of poverty. And once they finish their education they would even be eligible for small business loans and go into business for themselves.

Welfare and Public Housing, shouldn’t just be tools to prevent people from homelessness and starvation. But again vehicles to transport people out of poverty along with their kids. If we truly want to fight poverty in America and I sure as hell do as both a Liberal and actual Progressive who wants to use government to empower people and create real progress, then homelessness and starvation prevention insurance, is not enough. You can’t just have people living a little more comfortably while still in poverty, but instead empower them to move themselves out of poverty. And even make it a requirement that people self-improve themselves. So we know who wants to work and be productive and who simply wants to live off of hard-working taxpayers.