Blue Dem Warriors: 'Liberals Want Everyone to Have The Same Freedoms & Opportunities'

Source:Facebook Blue Dem Warriors-

Source:The New Democrat:

This is exactly what liberalism is about and what Liberals actually believe. Quality opportunity for everyone that lead to individual freedom for everyone. A society where everyone has the individual freedom to manage their own lives. Not the freedom from personal responsibility to manage their own affairs. Not the freedom to not have to figure out your own health insurance, retirement plan, where to send your kids to school, how much you should work during the week, what you can eat and drink, say to other people, watch on TV, who to sleep with, what music to listen to, etc. This is the main difference from socialism or what so-called Progressives like to call progressivism and neoconservatism. The question comes down to who has the power. The government or the people.

You get to individual freedom through opportunity. You get to opportunity through education and economic development. Getting the skills that you need to get the good jobs and then selling yourself based on your skills to get that good job. That gives you freedom and ability to manage your own life yourself. Without government deciding for you how to get your health insurance, where to send your kids to school, how to plan your own retirement and how to spend your own money more broadly. And what you do with your own personal time. Individual freedom can only work through education and then later personal responsibility. So when people make good personal decisions they enjoy the benefits from that. When they make bad decisions they live with the consequences of that themselves.

You don’t need a big government big enough to manage everyone’s life for them if you have an educated society with the skills and freedom to make their own decisions. Government has a role to see that everyone has the opportunity to get the freedom that they need to live, in well freedom. But not hold people down, because they’ve decided that government should take care of those people instead. Or tax and regulate people to the extent that freedom is discouraged, because the people believe that government will take care of them. Or they won’t be able to enjoy their success once they get it. Government shouldn’t discourage people from being individually successful and put down individual wealth. But instead promote those things so we have more wealthy and successful free people. Which is better for everyone involved including government.

Remembering Lauren Bacall: Lauren Bacall- Speak The Truth

Source:Facebook Remembering Lauren Bacall-

Source:The Daily Review

Hollywood Goddess Lauren Bacall saying that she believes in the truth and saying what you think. And adds why not? And to make a political correctness point to that even though of course I agree with Lauren on this, whose at least arguably the greatest actress we’ve ever known even though this is not about her career. Political correctness advocates Left and Right and unfortunately more Left than Right would argue that sometimes the truth hurts. And we can’t always say what we think and know, because someone especially perhaps minorities might be offended by that. Which of course goes against liberal democratic values like fee speech. But that is really a different topic and this blog covers that a lot anyway.

The best tool that an individual has in life will ever have after life is not freedom. And that might sound surprising to some, but there’s actually something more important than that. That has everything that we all value and love built around this more powerful tool. That tool is the truth and without that and of course education which comes from the truth, nothing else matters. Without the truth and education we would never know what we actually know. You’ll never know how to improve yourself and where you do well and where you need to do better without the truth. And sometime you might have flaws that are so severe and screw up so badly that you need someone to get in your face and set yourself straight. (No offense to gays) The truth also helps you know where you’re doing well. So you can continue to do that as you’re improving on your flaws.

We’re nothing in a positive sense if we don’t have the truth and we don’t have an education. To know what’s going on and why it’s going on, to know what works and what doesn’t work, where we’re strong and where we’re weak, where we’re average. And then know to improve ourselves and emphasize our strengths. And yes that at times means hearing things about yourself and people you care about that are pretty negative. But the smart strong people can handle that, because they know themselves very well, because they value the truth and facts and rely on them to improve themselves. They know they’re not perfect and that there are times they need to be reminded of that and to see where else they may come up short. And there are times when the truth sounds real good. And you find out something good about yourself that you didn’t know before. But without the truth we would all be blind NASCAR drivers on the racetrack of life, hoping we get to where we need to go safely. But without a course that actually gets us there.

AlterNet: Alexandra Rosenmann- Why Noam Chomsky Won't Call Himself a Modern-Day Liberal

Source:AZ Quotes-

Source:The New Democrat

I’ve blogged a lot about Noam Chomsky over the last five years or so, because I find him to be absolutely fascinating as well as very intelligent. Even though we don’t tend to agree economic policy, foreign policy, history, America even, but he’s someone whose very consistent with his own libertarian socialist politics. Which is my point here. He’s one of the few people on the New-Left, (if that makes happier instead of Far-Left) but he’s one of the few people on that side who actually owns his own politics. While people who have a lot in common with him politically like former Representative Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, still call themselves a Progressive, or Liberal (which gets my heart rate up when I hear that). Professor Chomsky says he’s a Libertarian-Socialist and has no problem with being called a Socialist.

What is a Libertarian-Socialist? You take libertarianism or liberalism on social and personal freedom issues and combine that with a socialist economic policy. As well as a dovish-isolationist foreign and national security policy. Which puts him to the left on really all social issues of the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, as well as so-called Progressive-Humanists. Who think they know better than anyone else what people should think and say and even think big government should decide what people should eat, drink, smoke, even what entertainment what we watch. These Progressives are supposed to be on the Left, but they have more in common with the Christian-Right when it comes to a lot of Freedom of Choice issues and gambling is another example of that. As well as being big government on economic policy. Noam Chomsky is a hard-core Liberal on social issues and against big government there.

Professor Chomsky, described his own politics as Libertarian-Socialist as early as 1977 in a BBC News interview. And Bernie Sanders is probably the closest thing we have to someone who is that liberal on social issues today and doesn’t want big government interfering there short of stepping in when people get hurt. But is a Democratic Socialist on economic policy. High taxes across the board, in exchange with a lot of Welfare subsidies. With a very limited military and foreign policy. There’s a lot for Liberals such as myself when it comes to social issues, Libertarians when it comes to social issues and Progressives and Democratic Socialists, when it comes to economic policy, to like about Noam Chomsky. And at least respect him in other areas. Because even though he’s someone who wants a big government involved in the economy, he believes in small government when it comes to social issues and civil liberties.
Source:Chomsky's Philosophy

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.