Russia Today: Amiri Baraka- 'I Wish The U.S. Was a Communist Country'

Source:Russia Today- Amiri Baraka talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, about communism and socialism.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

"Amiri Baraka, a poet and political activist, spoke with RT about communism as a perfect system, as well as about detainee torture in the US and reasons behind America not preventing the 9/11 tragedy." 

From Russia Today 

"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6] As such, communism is a specific form of socialism.

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought which broadly include Marxism and anarcho-communism as well as the political ideologies grouped around both, all of which share the analysis that the current order of society stems from capitalism, its economic system and mode of production, namely that in this system there are two major social classes, the relationship between these two classes is exploitative, and that this situation can only ultimately be resolved through a social revolution.[7] The two classes are the proletariat (the working class), who make up the majority of the population within society and must work to survive; and the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), a small minority who derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production. According to this analysis, revolution would put the working class in power and in turn establish social ownership of the means of production which is the primary element in the transformation of society towards communism.[7]

After 1917, a number of states were identified as communist: these states espoused Marxism–Leninism or a variation of it.[8] Along with social democracy, communism became the dominant political tendency within the international socialist movement by the 1920s.[9] The emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally communist state led to communism's widespread association with Marxism–Leninism and the Soviet economic model.[1][a][10] While the term "communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to countries ruled by communist parties, these states themselves did not describe themselves as communist or claim to have achieved communism: they referred to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[11][12][13][14] Terms used by communist states include national-democratic, people's democratic, socialist-oriented and workers and peasants' states.[15] Some economists and intellectuals argue that, in practice, the model under which these nominally communist states operated was in fact a form of state capitalism[16][17][18] or a non-planned administrative or command economy[19][20] and not an actual communist economic model in accordance with most accepted definitions of “communism” as an economic theory." 

From Wikipedia 

"Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, there is currently no single definitive Marxist theory.[1]

Some Marxist schools of thought place greater emphasis on certain aspects of classical Marxism while rejecting or modifying other aspects. Some schools have sought to combine Marxian concepts and non-Marxian concepts which has then led to contradictory conclusions.[2] It has been argued that there is a movement toward the recognition of historical and dialectical materialism as the fundamental conceptions of all Marxist schools of thought.[3] This view is rejected by some post-Marxists such as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, who claim that history is not only determined by the mode of production, but also by consciousness and will.[4]

Marxism has had a profound impact on global academia, having influenced many fields, including anthropology,[5][6] archaeology, art theory, criminology, cultural studies, economics, education, ethics, film theory, geography, historiography, literary criticism, media studies,[7][8] philosophy, political science, psychology, science studies,[9] sociology, urban planning and theater." 

From Wikipedia 

"Leninism is a political ideology developed by Russian Marxist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin that proposes the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat led by a revolutionary vanguard party, as the political prelude to the establishment of communism. The function of the Leninist vanguard party is to provide the working classes with the political consciousness (education and organisation) and revolutionary leadership necessary to depose capitalism in the Russian Empire (1721–1917).[1] Leninist revolutionary leadership is based upon The Communist Manifesto (1848) identifying the communist party as "the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country; that section which pushes forward all others." As the vanguard party, the Bolsheviks viewed history through the theoretical framework of dialectical materialism, which sanctioned political commitment to the successful overthrow of capitalism, and then to instituting socialism; and, as the revolutionary national government, to realize the socio-economic transition by all means.[2]

In the aftermath of the October Revolution (1917), Leninism was the dominant version of Marxism in Russia and the basis of Soviet Democracy, the rule of directly elected soviets. In establishing the socialist mode of production in Bolshevik Russia—with the Decree on Land (1917), war communism (1918–1921), and the New Economic Policy (1921–1928)—the revolutionary régime suppressed most political opposition, including Marxists who opposed Lenin's actions, the anarchists and the Mensheviks, factions of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.[3] The Russian Civil War (1917–1922), which included the seventeen-army Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1917–1925), and left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks (1918–1924) were the external and internal wars which transformed Bolshevik Russia into the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), the core republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).[4]

As revolutionary praxis, Leninism originally was neither a proper philosophy nor a discrete political theory. Leninism comprises politico-economic developments of orthodox Marxism and Lenin's interpretations of Marxism, which function as a pragmatic synthesis for practical application to the actual conditions (political, social, economic) of the post-emancipation agrarian society of Imperial Russia in the early 20th century.[1] As a political-science term, Lenin's theory of proletarian revolution entered common usage at the fifth congress of the Communist International (1924), when Grigory Zinoviev applied the term Leninism to denote "vanguard-party revolution."[1] The term Leninism was accepted as part of CPSU's vocabulary and doctrine around 1922, and in January 1923, despite objections from Lenin, it entered the public vocabulary." 

From Wikipedia 

Amiri Baraka makes the classic leftist-socialist argument that Communist states really aren't Communist states and what's practiced in those countries really isn't communism. That the Soviet Union of Russia really wasn't a Communist State and I guess the People's Republic of China really isn't a Communist State today either. Well, there' partially right about the PRC because a lot of the Chinese economy is now in private hands and the Chinese are somewhat free to move about their own country and even travel to other countries and oversees. 

But if you look at how communism is practiced in the 20th Century and is still practiced today like in the Communist Republic of Korea and in the Castro Republic of Cuba, at the very least the Leninist (named after Russian Communist leader Vladimir Lenin) version of communism is the Communist philosophy that was practiced in the 20th Century and in some cases still practiced today, where the state (meaning the national government) owns and operates the entire country. And the people are really just there to serve the national government. And the more valuable they are the state, the better lives that they'll have in that country.

What Amiri Baraka was talking about in this Russia Today interview was democratic socialism. Which is socialist state and economy, but where the leaders are democratically elected and where the people are free to live their own lives. Which isn't much different from the social democracies of Canada and Europe, but at least according to this interview Mr. Barack seems even to left of those social democracies and talking about nationalization of current American private industries. 

ABC News: 'John Stossel vs Michael Moore- Socialized Medicine'

Source:ABC News- from John Stossel's documentary.

"John Stossel vs Michael Moore - Socialized Medicine. Vid is posted for educational purposes only... 

From Truindep 

I don't accept John Stossel's work as the gold standard. He does his reporting a documentaries from a strong conservative-libertarian slant that suggests that everything that government does is either incompetent or unconstitutional and that everything that the private sector does (especially Corporate America) is either perfect or damn near close to perfection and it would only work better, if government got the hell out-of-the-way. 

But just from looking at left-wing Michael Moore's short clip about Cuban health care (or Castro Communist health car) it looks like a propaganda film from the Castro Regime design to suggest that the Cuban health care system is something that Americans could only dream of having. And the American health care system is a corporate hell hole. 

Moore suggests that the Cuban system isn't perfect in this clip where he said that of course the Cuban system isn't perfect and this shouldn't be the real debate anyway. That we should be talking about the health care that the Canadians, British, and Scandinavians get, compared with Americans. 

Thom Hartmann: 'Health Care Should Be A Right To Life in America!'

Source:Thom Hartmann- arguing that health care is a right in America.

"Thom talks about healthcare and how it should be a right for every American in order to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Rep. Zack Wamp's office number: (202) 225-3271

Rep. John Conyer's office number: (202) 225-5126

White House comment line: (202) 456-1111

Contact your member of Congress: (202) 224-3121" 

From Thom Hartmann

We already have health care as a legal right not constitutional, but as a legal right, at least for emergencies. If you get sick or hurt and you end up at an emergency room and end up in a hospital for at least a period of time, the doctors have to by law give you the health care that you need in order for you to survive. At least in the short-term and if you want to go farther then that, we need Congress to pass a new law. 

You could also argue that the Right to Self-Defense (the 2nd Amendment) protects our right to health and life in America, because it gives Americans the constitutional right to defend themselves and prevent predators from hurting us. 

But this real discussion and debate is really about whether we have a right to health insurance in America and under the U.S. Constitution and current U.S. Law, we don't have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to health insurance. But we also don't have a right to food or water (at least under the Constitution and law) to food, water, housing, a good job, education, banking, everything else that human beings need to live well in America. 

If Socialists in America want the Federal Government to guarantee every American a right to health insurance, then they need to tell Americans how they (meaning the taxpayers) are going to have to pay for it. And if they're going guarantee every American the right to health insurance, then perhaps there other services that they want to guarantee as well, like housing, food, water, etc. And if that's the case as well, then they need to tell every taxpayer in America how the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. Because as the great Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman brilliantly said, there's no free lunch in America, at least that comes from government. But who would want free government food anyway? 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Paul Weeks: 'A Deeper Crisis is Coming, We Must Control the Banks'

Source:The Real News- New York City: the Capital of Corporate America. I guess NYC isn't as left-wing as it gets blamed for.

"John Weeks: Obama gave the banks time to rally opposition to severe regulations; another banking collapse is on the way." 

From The Real News 

We'll never nationalize the banking system in America. Thats a socialist pipe dream that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) will never accomplish. Nor should we because the Federal Government doesn't do a very good job of what it's runs now. Besides, the banking system represents too much of the American economy, so that would never happen. 

Give the Feds the banking system one day, then they can get the auto industry the next day, airline industry the next day and so on, making the United States look like the Soviet Union which never had a very strong economy, despite its population, land, and educated class, but we can have a much better banking system in America. 

It's not illegal in America to be a Socialist or even a Marxist, it's just very unpopular. (Regardless of whatever Millennial polling suggests) If nationalizing huge chunks of the American economy whether you're talking about health care, banking, autos, pensions, whatever it might be, if you believe nationalization is what's needed to get the American economy back to strong health, then how come you just won't come out of your political closet and admit that you're a Socialist, or even a Marxist-Socialist, because nationalization is what Marxist-Socialists have always believed in and still do.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, talking about President Barack H. Obama.

"Radio show host Thom Hartmann on the critique of Obama. More at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

As Thom Hartmann says in this interview, Barack Obama is not what the left-wing (to be kind) in America calls a Movement Progressive. Which is someone that not only believe in progress and that government can play a constructive role in American life and even in the economy, but someone who wants to radically change the face of American government and even change our form of government. 

What American leftists call Movement Progressives, the rest of the developed world calls Social Democrats or even Socialists. But because of the negative stereotypes that come from Socialist and socialism in America, because of the Cold War, as well as Communists and communism, American leftists live by Progressive or Liberal, because they're generally terrified of being known as Socialists in America. 

Barack Obama wasn't a so-called Movement Progressive when he ran for President in 2007-08, or when he was in the Senate. Mr. Obama comes from the Bill Clinton-Robert F. Kennedy faction of the party, people who are the real Progressive Democrats of the party. Which is different from the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, that Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders essentially leads today. That Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader (if he was still a Democrat) the so-called Progressive Caucus and others in the party, that want to make America like Europe.

Move On: Robert Reich- 'Puts An Offer on The Table For President Obama'

Source:Move On- left-wing political economist Robert Reich, on President Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"In less than three minutes, our favorite economist spells out what it's going to take to get our support."

From Move On

What so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) need to understand is what President Obama is doing, this whole campaign about class warfare, is exactly that. The class warfare campaign to get the Far-Left in the Democratic Party behind him for 2012. The exact same play or very close to it that he ran in 2007-08 to get this base behind him to win the Democratic nomination for President that he played masterfully. But then in the general election he became a Center-Left Progressive Democrat. Because he knew he needed the Democratic Party behind him, but he also needed Independent voters behind him as well.

Thats how Senator Barack Obama won Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, as well and Colorado. States that the Republican nominee has to win in order to get elected President. The President is not running this campaign because he believes in the so-called progressive agenda. If thats what so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, really) want, then they should vote for the so-called Progressive Party nominee or the Socialist Party nominee. Neither Nominee of course would win but at least they would be ideologically in sync. President Obama believes in the Democratic agenda which is why he's a Progressive Democrat.

Center-Left Democrats have similar goals of Democratic Socialists, but different policy's to accomplish those goals. You're not going to see the President offer a single payer Medicare For All plan, or a plan to nationalize big banks. Or a plan to let all of the tax cuts expire including for the middle class. Or I'm sure a lot of other things that so-called Progressive Economist Bob Reich wants to do.

So before Democratic Socialists throw all of their support behind President Obama and unless they want a President Gingrich or Romney, they have to get behind the President and Democratic Party. And then perhaps try to recruit more of their members in the Democratic Party. Or recruit their own members to the so-called Progressive Party for 2014-16, they have to get behind the President. And not cost Democrats another election in Congress or cost them the White House. Because they didn't bother to vote or voted for people who lost overwhelmingly.

President Obama wants to pass his own agenda to restore American capitalism and make it work for the whole country. The other 90-99%, not tear down American capitalism and move to democratic socialism thats common in Europe. And he knows he needs the entire Democratic Party behind him to accomplish this. He knows he needs to get reelected obviously and that Senate Democrats need to hold on. And he needs more House Democrats if not a Democratic majority with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. But he can't accomplish this with just Progressives, Liberals and Centrists. He already has those people. He needs Democratic Socialists as well and thats what this latest campaign is all about.

So for Democratic Socialists to get behind the President for 2012, as a Progressive Democrat, I believe thats great. Because that means President Obama's approval rating will go up and get near 50%. If he gets there and holds it, he's basically a lock to get reelected. But Socialists should know why he's doing this campaign, to get reelected because it's about politics. 

Wendy McElroy: 'A Feminist Defense of Pornography'

Source:Free Inquiry- from an article that Canadian author Wendy McElroy wrote about pornography.

"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A

Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most

feminists are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex

workers." 

From Wendy McElroy

I take issues like pornography, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, prostitution, gambling, video games, music, movies, abortion (go down the line) as personal choice issues in how I decide whether they should be legal or not. And if they are legal or illegal and under what conditions. 

When it comes to personal choice issue where there aren't multiple victims involved, I ask this basic simple question: would society be better off if we were freer or less freer and how we decide these issues? Or should government step in and decide for the people themselves whether they can do these things or not? That would be the less freer approach. And once they are given that power, they'll probably say no. Or should we allow free people to make these decisions for themselves? That would be the free approach and if we go in that direction. 

Wendy McElroy takes it a step further and says that pornography should not only be legal, but endorses it and perhaps recommends that women (at least) should not only be viewing pornography, but perhaps personally involved in it. I don't take that approach, but instead say that free adults should make these decisions for themselves and then be personally accountable for their own personal choices. 

People who are called radical feminists or militant feminists, if there's one thing that they have in common with the Christian-Right is the belief in big government even as it relates to personal freedom and say that pornography is not only bad, but it should be illegal, because they believe that it degrades women. And in a free society like America, we all get to make these decisions for ourselves and believe what we believe. 

MOX News: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger'

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

"Michael Moore says Occupy Wall Street will only get bigger" 

From Anon Saint 

Michael Moore on Countdown With Keith Olbermann talking about Occupy Wall Street. Keep in ,mind: Mr. Moore is s multi-millionaire who is very successful in America because he got himself a good education and has real talent as a filmmaker and then applied his skills and talents in the private market, capitalist system in America and then became very successful. And yet now he’s bashing the very economic system in America that allowed for him to be so successful. 

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading so-called Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I’m not sure Mr. Moore has much credibility on this issue, bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow. (Sort of like peanut butter or chocolate sauce on a hot dog) 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Ed Schultz on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Ed Schulz, speaking to Paul Jay about President Barack Obama, in 2009.

"Schultz: If the President waivers on public health care and jobs, he could be a 'one term wonder'

From The Real News 

Ed Schultz sounding very practical and pragmatic about his analysis about President Barack Obama (the pragmatic Progressive: if you will) and arguing that President Obama inherited a huge mess in 2009 and he's doing the best with the hand that was dealt to him and that he's made real progress so far. Talking about the Recover Act and SCHIP. (State Children's Health Insurance Program) Which is what you generally don't get from left-wing political commentators in America, especially about President Barack Obama. 

What you got from Paul Jay in this interview was the usual Far-Left talking points that President Obama is simply not doing enough, that he's not progressive enough (which is code for not socialist enough) and arguing that Democrats have The White House and Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate and that Democrats should be doing a lot more. That they're not left-wing enough. 

Generally when you get a discussion like this between two leftists when they're talking about mainstream Democrats, is they are both talking like Democrats are selling them out or screwing them over and they're really just moderate Republicans. (To paraphrase Noam Chomsky) What you get here is one of the leftists (Paul Jay) essentially arguing that the Democrats aren't left enough, with Ed Schultz showing some real patience and practicality. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann On Leftist Democrats (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, on the left-wing in America, in and outside of the Democratic Party.

"Radio show host Thom Hartman on progressives and the Democratic Party." 

From The Real News 

To put it simply and to risk sounding insulting to leftists (Socialists and Communists) but to pick up on what Thom Hartmann was talking about the difference between leftist-Democrats and rightist-Democrats: is that Republicans regardless of political ideology believe in wealth, individual success, and money. When the right-wing (or Far-Right) of the Republican Party wants something, they organize, they raise a hell of a lot money, because they know how to get it and where to get and then recruit candidates and people who are already in office to deliver on whatever their platform at the time says and wants.  

Leftists tend to be hipsters and hippies from the 1960s who are so antiestablishment, that they believe getting involved with the establishment (meaning government and politics) only feeds the beast and the man (as they would put it) and they believe they have better things to do. 

And again we're talking about Socialists by enlarge, who don't know where to go to get the money that it would take to put together a political movement or organization, that's even big enough to take on the mainstream establishment in the Democratic Party, or form a leftist party that could at some point compete with the Democratic Party. 

Plus, again we're talking about leftists (meaning Socialists) and they just don't access to the big donors that they would need to back their movement to take over an organization as large as the Democratic Party in America, because wealthy people, especially Democrats don't believe in what the Far-Left wants to do and is trying to accomplish. 

Rich Democrats love their freedom, wealth, and lifestyles, and don't want big government taking that away from them. Especially the so-called Hollywood Leftists who talk like Socialists, but live like liberal-democratic, capitalists. 

Prepare To Survive: 'Having More Than 7 Days Of Food Makes You A Suspected Terrorist'

Source:Prepare To Survive- FBN talk show host Andrew Napolitano.

"It's all in the numerous FBI fliers called ' communities against terrorism '. 

S 1867, hr 1540, indefinite detention, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, judge napolitano, freedom watch, john mccain, carl levin, lindsey graham, rand paul,  military, arbitrary arrest, us citizen, battlefield, prepper, food storage, weatherproof ammo, suspected terrorist, National Defense Authorization Act."

Source:Prepare To Survive- FBN talk show host Andrew Napolitano.

From Prepare To Survive  

"Obama Signs NDAA into Law - Happy New Year?"  

Prepare To Survive

"In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law - including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge... 

Source:ABC News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From ABC News  

At some point the Far-Left (in and outside the Republican Party) is going to have to decide for themselves how they view President Barack Obama. He's been accused by them of being a Socialist and yet he keeps signing all of these laws that like indefinite detention that empower our national security state and Federal law enforcement. And hasn't done a damn thing to expand the safety net or create a welfare state, nationalize and of the American industries. 

If Barack Obama is a illegal immigrant from Kenya (as the Far-Right claims) who is also a Muslim-Socialist-Atheist-Communist (all charges that the Far-Right) have made about Barack Obama, he's got a hell of a weird way of showing that: like his Hawaii birth certificate, or his middle class tax cuts (not tax increases) or his policies and laws that have made the national security state in America even stronger. 

I disagree with indefinite detention and a lot of what's in the so-called Patriot Act, but if President Obama was the radical Far--Leftist or illegal immigrant that the Far-Right claims about him, he wouldn't have signed or renewed any of those laws. 

TVO: Allan Gregg Interviewing Noam Chomsky- 'The Conscience of America'

Source:TVO- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking to Canadian talk show host Allan Gregg, about American foreign policy.

"Noam Chomsky - Conscience of America."

Originally from Allen Gregg 

What I like and respect about Noam Chomsky, is what I like and respect about Ron Paul, or William F. Buckley, or Bernie Sanders, Ayn Rand: not their political philosophy, necessarily, but their commitment to it and their honesty. 

You don't have to agree with someone to view them as a good, honest, and decent person. Perhaps the main problem with American politics and probably why we have 3-5 American voters who aren't a member of either the two political parties, is that politicians and political activists, as well as commentators that view the other side and even people in their own party as the enemy and not as just political opponents, as well immoral people. 

I disagree with Professor Noam Chomsky on most economic and foreign policy issues, but I respect his intelligence and ability to communicate exactly what he believes and why he believes it.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Bart Friedman: 'Jesse Jackson Speech to 1988 Convention'

Source:Bart Friedman- Reverend Jesse Jackson speaking to the 1988 Democratic National Convention, in Atlanta, Georgia.

"Never stop dreaming, never surrender, women deserve equal pay, AIDS, Roosevelt in a wheelchair or Bush on a horse?, I was born in a 3 room house, keep hope alive." 

From Bart Friedman 

“Tonight, we pause and give praise and honor to God for being good enough to allow us to be at this place at this time. When I look out at this convention, I see the face of America: Red, Yellow, Brown, Black and White. We’re all precious in God’s sight — the real rainbow coalition.

All of us — All of us who are here think that we are seated. But we’re really standing on someone’s shoulders. Ladies and gentlemen, Mrs. Rosa Parks — the mother of the civil rights movement.”

Source:American Rhetoric- Reverend Jesse Jackson speaking to the 1988 Democratic National Convention, in Atlanta, Georgia.

From American Rhetoric

Reverend Jesse Jackson at least to me with all of his faults and strengths represents the best of the Democratic Party as far as our vision and what it means to be a Democrat in America. And what we stand for as a party and what makes us Democrats. Not all of the policies, but the vision and what Democrats are supposed to be about and what we fight for. He’s someone who started from the bottom in life growing up in the segregated deep South of the 1950s and 60s.

Jesse Jackson faced discrimination obviously because of his race and complexion and yet still working past that to becoming one of the most influential reverends in the United States. And becoming one of the main leaders in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And working for Dr. Martin L. King’s Southern Leadership Conference and becoming one of the most important civil rights leaders post MLK Assassination of 1968. And someone whose always been about making a great country even greater so it works for all Americans.

Hope, opportunity, equality, do not settle for mediocrity and bigotry, or use the way you started out in life as an excuse not to be successful which is I believe the message of Reverend Jackson that America should work for all Americans. Which is what the Democratic Party is all about at our best and why we represent the entire country. Instead of just being able to appeal strongly to one ethnic or racial group in the country and why we have strong Democrats all over the country. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Strombo: 'Gilles Duceppe on Quebec Sovereignty'

Source:Strombo- Quebec Nationalist Leader Gilles Ducceppe.

"Gilles Duceppe talks to Strombo about how he views Quebec's future on CBC's The Hour." 

From Strombo

Senator Bernie Sanders: Ed Schultz Show- 'Super Committee: The Winners & Losers'

Source:Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on The Ed Show on MSNBC.

"Super Committee: The Winners & Losers" 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

I don't see any good news or bad news from the Congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction (or as I call it: The Congressional Joint Committee on Do Nothing) as far as them not reaching an agreement, because I wasn't expecting them to reach any agreement. It's real hard to be disappointed anything to happen. (Not that I've tried that or anything)

I do see Congressional Democrats looking very good coming out of this. They knew going in that Congressional Republicans weren't going to agree to any tax hikes, probably not even tax reform. But they look good to their base which they'll definitely need in 2012 to take back the House and hold the Senate, by not agreeing to any entitlement reform without more defense cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy. 

I don't believe President Obama looks good because it's one more time he tried to bring Democrats and Republicans together and they failed. I don't think that will hurt him in the election, he can easily back up Congressional Democrats on this. 

I believe once again Congressional Republicans look stubborn and unable to work with Democrats, with their way or the highway approach when it comes to tax reform and caving to Grover Norquist again and they may have given democrats an issue to hit them with in 2012. 

RT America: The Alyona Show- Kevin Zeese: 'The 99 Percent's Deficit Plan'

Source:Russia Today- Kevin Zeese was one of Occupy Wall Street's founding members.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company." 

From Wikipedia 

"Next Wednesday is the deadline for the Congressional Super Committee to finalize its deal on how to find 1.2 trillion dollars minimum in deficit savings. All things considered, including what members of the committee themselves are saying, it looks like it's going to fail. We'll take a look at something that one occupation in the country is offering up. Those camping out at Freedom Plaza have now created their own Deficit Proposal, the 99%'s deficit proposal. Kevin Zeese, an Occupy Washington, DC Oragnizer explains." 

From RT America

It looks like Occupy Wall Street finally has an agenda and it's pretty clear where they are coming from on the political spectrum. Their leadership (if you want to call it that) has put something on the table an agenda that I'm assuming they want to see passed.  

So the OWS deficit reduction plan is about putting the top tax rate back at 91% (which is where it was until 1964) and raising the capital gains tax. And of course cutting defense in half, without laying out where they would make those cuts. (Perhaps because no one in this movement actually understands the defense budget) They'll probably say their cuts will be in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's all borrowed money to begin with, so if we stopped doing that, we would just stop current borrowing, but not actually cutting the deficit. 

The OWS agenda (at least according to Kevin Zeese) is just more traditional social democratic proposals: more infrastructure investment, more co-ops in business, more employee owned businesses. I'm fine with that, just as long as businesses and employees get to make those decisions themselves, instead of Big Government forcing those businesses on to the people. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a left-wing political movement in America called the New-Left, which was made up of self-described Socialists and Communists. Not right-wingers who still lived in the 1950s calling these young political activists Socialists and Communists. And those young activists back then were talking about what left-wing Gen-X and Millennial political activists are talking about today. Nothing new here, but at least OWS finally has a political agenda.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'What is the Happiest Country on Earth -- And Why?'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur: guilty of first degree ass-speaking. Unless he had the time to ask 4 billion people how happier they are, how could he know this? 

"What is the Happiest Country on Earth -- And Why?" 

From The Young Turks 

I hate these so-called scientific polls, which are really just left-wing, political pop culture polls in America that are designed to promote a basic political and economic philosophy. 

I mean seriously, how would anyone in the world ever be able to tell who are even the happiest people or person in any given country, let alone who are the happiest people and countries in the world? Maybe they inherited a 100-billion-dollars from their grandfather when they're 21 and decided that they would buy their own airplane devote their lives to traveling around the world to poll people about how happy they are. And if you believe that: I hear there are beach houses in Alaska for rent with a view of the Kremlin in Russia, where you can watch President Vladimir Putin going swimming everyday. 

Seriously, no one has time to do this and therefor could ever know who are the happiest people in any given country, let alone the entire Planet Earth. 

And also lets clear up one for more socialist falsehood about Scandinavian social democracy that Cenk Uygur repeated in his editorial: there's so thing as free government anything, that is funded either through taxes or by borrowing the money from another country. Anyone who pays taxes (including Cenk Uygur) is smart enough to know that. Finland and everyone else in Scandinavia pays for all the government benefits that they receive, whether it's health care, paid leave, or anything else that's provide by their government. 

Talking Points Memo: Senator Barack Obama- 'Confesses to Socialist Leanings'

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about his opponent Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)

"Obama Confesses to Socialist Leanings ...admits to sharing in kindergarten. Oct. 29, 2008."

From Talking Points Memo 

If Barack Obama is Socialist, then then John McCain is a Christian-Right Theocrat, as well as a Islamic Theocrat, wanting to bring both fundamentalist Evangelicalism, and Sharia Law to America. (Impressive guy to pull both of those off at the exact same time) 

2008 was obviously a very trying year for America economically and with the Republican Party in The White House and presiding over all of this turmoil, Senator John McCain and company knew they were in a lot of trouble politically. (Which would explain their political hail marry pass known as Sarah Palin) And when political campaigns are in trouble, they tend to get desperate, especially when both Congress and The White House are at stake. And throw every name in the book (and perhaps some names that haven't been invented yet) at their opponents.   

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

Talks At Google: Lawrence Lessig- 'Republic Lost'

Source:Talks At Google- Lawrence Lessig talking about his latest book Republic Lost.

"In an era when special interests funnel huge amounts of money into our government-driven by shifts in campaign-finance rules and brought to new levels by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission-trust in our government has reached an all-time low. More than ever before, Americans believe that money buys results in Congress, and that business interests wield control over our legislature.

With heartfelt urgency and a keen desire for righting wrongs, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig takes a clear-eyed look at how we arrived at this crisis: how fundamentally good people, with good intentions, have allowed our democracy to be co-opted by outside interests, and how this exploitation has become entrenched in the system. Rejecting simple labels and reductive logic-and instead using examples that resonate as powerfully on the Right as on the Left-Lessig seeks out the root causes of our situation. He plumbs the issues of campaign financing and corporate lobbying, revealing the human faces and follies that have allowed corruption to take such a foothold in our system. He puts the issues in terms that nonwonks can understand, using real-world analogies and real human stories. And ultimately he calls for widespread mobilization and a new Constitutional Convention, presenting achievable solutions for regaining control of our corrupted-but redeemable-representational system. In this way, Lessig plots a roadmap for returning our republic to its intended greatness. 

While America may be divided, Lessig vividly champions the idea that we can succeed if we accept that corruption is our common enemy and that we must find a way to fight against it. In Republic, Lost, he not only makes this need palpable and clear-he gives us the practical and intellectual tools to do something about it." 

From Talks At Google

One of the things I respect about the Occupy Wall Street movement is the fact they do support campaign finance reform and ending the partnership that Wall Street has with the Federal Government. Now, I disagree with their solutions and their alternate agenda, but they are right that we need to end this partnership and that we need to reform our campaign system.

OWS doesn't like the influence that Wall Street has on our Federal Government. (Which should go without saying to anyone with a brain and happens to also be sane) And all at least to a certain extent support CFR and ending corporate welfare. And perhaps all would like to see our lobbying rules reformed as well. But OWSs has a different approach in how they reform our system. But at least they all agree that it needs to be reformed but just have different approaches in how to do it. 

Reel Talk: 'Occupy Wall Street- A Short Documentary'

Source:Reel Talk Films- talking about Occupy Wall Street.

"A short film on the Occupy Wall Street movement. Included: facts behind big banks, history of social change and a first hand observation of the protest itself. 

"Knowledge is power. How will you use it? We are the future. We are the 99%"

From Reel Talk

We are going to find out in the next few months as the weather gets cold, especially in the Northeast and Midwest, if the Occupy Wall Street movement is here to stay and will be a factor in 2012. Or will it fade out like other social democratic movements in the past. Especially that were dominated by young people as they got older, finished school, went to work, got married, had kids, became part of the economic establishment they claimed to be against, etc. 

For OWS and I know I've blogged about this a lot lately and said this a lot before, but for them to become something and to effect the 2012 elections, which I'm assuming is their goal, to bring what they call Progressive Change (or Socialist Change) to America, which I'm assuming they are for, they have to be for something. They have to lay out what they say Progressive Change is. It's obvious what they are against: Wall Street, corporations, lobbyists, our campaign finance system. But the question is what does the modern left-wing (or Socialist-Left) in America believe in. And what would they do with government, is they just had the power to do it.

Mark Belfast: 'Newsnight - The Meaning of Socialism in 2010 - 7th September 2010'

Source:Mark Belfast- U.K. Labour Party member Tony Benn, talking to BBC's Newsnight in 2010.

"Newsnight debate in the middle of the Labour leadership campaign on 7th September 2010. Features veteran Labour politican Tony Benn and Political Editor of the 'New Statesman' Mehdi Hasan, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman." 

From Mark Belfast

The meaning of socialism as it was in 2010 and is now going into 2012, has the same meaning in Britain as it does in America. And its democratic socialism or social democracy meaning that the people have some personal economic liberty and there's private enterprise, but that it's heavily regulated and taxed to finance a large welfare state to provide a lot of social insurances. Like health care, health insurance, education, pensions, transportation, etc, even media. Basically the economic system that Sweden has. 

When most people in the West or developed world at least are talking about Socialists and socialism (at least in the positive sense) they're talking about social democracy. And in an economic sense that means having a strong, vibrant private economy and private sector, where individuals are highly taxed to fund a large welfare state, to provide the basic human and economic benefits that Socialists tend not to trust the private sector to provide individuals, like health care. 

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Norman Solomon- 'The Emperor Has No Clothes'

Source:The Real News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) I guess someone that the Far-Left views as an emperor. 

"Norman Solomon (running for Democratic nomination for Congress in California): Progressives must mount a challenge inside the Democratic Party." 

From The Real News

Norman Solomon a self-described Progressive (Democratic Socialist, in actuality) Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in California, represents exactly what so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) should be doing right now. You can't get a job or you can't get power unless you apply for it, especially in American politics. 

If you don't like the Democratic Party or the Democratic Leadership and you feel left out of power, but you want to stay in the Democratic Party, then you should either run for office or recruit people who share your political and governmental values to run for office. And not sit at home and cry like a baby as the other party gains power, because you sat at home and didn't do a damn thing about it.

The Real News: David Dougherty- 'Hundred of Community Activists Gather in Baltimore'

Source:The Real News- in Baltimore, Maryland.

"Fair Development Conference held to discuss local organizing strategies." 

From The Real News

So far for the most part the Occupy Wall Street movement has been exactly that: what the people in this movement are against. Not really what they would do instead, what would their alternative agenda would be. Except for a few exceptions, like calling for a "national fair wage" of 20$ an hour. College for all provided by the Federal Government and of course health insurance for all again provided by the Federal Government. (What's known as Medicare For All) And they have been pretty discipline about not announcing an alternative agenda. 

I'm guessing the reasons why OWS hasn't made their own agenda public yet, is because it easy to be against Wall Street right now. Thats like being against trial lawyers, or Congress, or communism. But once it's clear you're against something, but then the question comes what would you do instead. It's easy to be against something especially if it's unpopular, but harder to lay out what you would do instead. And once you're against something that has broad disapproval like Wall Street.

Al Jazeera: Jesse Mesner-Hage- 'Cuba Legalizes Sale of Private Property'

Source:Al Jazeera- welcome to Fidel Castro's Communist Republic of Cuba.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is an international Arabic news channel based in Doha, Qatar that is operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The channel is a flagship of the media conglomerate and hence, is the only single offering to carry the name as simply "Al Jazeera" in its branding.

The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia 

"Cuba's government has given its citizens the right to buy and sell their homes for the first time since the 1959 revolution.

The long-awaited reform, published on Thursday in the government's Official Gazette, is one one of the most substantial reforms introduced by Raul Castro, Cuba's president, to liberalize the island's Soviet-style command economy while maintaining the communist system..

Phil Peters, a Cuba expert at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia, said the move could have broad

ramifications for the Cuban economy, where the cash-strapped government is encouraging the growth of self-employment as it attempts to cut a million jobs from its bloated payrolls.

"The ability to sell houses means instant capital formation for Cuban families. It becomes a source of capital at the

grassroots level," Peters said. "It is a big sign of the government letting go."

Al Jazeera's Jesse Mesner-Hage reports." 

From Al Jazeera

Today there was another indication that Fidel Castro is out-of-power in Cuba and that his brother Raul is President Castro of the Communist Republic of Cuba. Perhaps even one day the President of the Socialist Republic of Cuba or even Democratic Republic of Cuba. But thats probably at least a decade off, but at least the Castro Regime has given its people some liberty and breathing space from this authoritarian regime that took power in Cuba fifty two years ago. 

Thom Hartmann: Ryan Streeter- 'Kick Starting the Economy With Radical Tax Reform?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- debating tax reform with Ryan Streeter.

"Thom Hartmann debates Ryan Streeter,  Editor of ConservativeHomeUSA / Director of Fiscal & Economic Policy-Sagamore Institute, on the Cain and Perry tax proposals." 

From Thom Hartmann 

The economy that Thom Hartmann is talking about was pre-1981 and even pre-1964 before President Lyndon Johnson and later President Ronald Reagan cut taxes across the board. What Mr. Hartmann seems to want is a tax system that ranges from 20-25% to 90%, which is what it was under President Dwight Eisenhower. 

With Ryan Streeter seeming to making the supply side economics argument, that if you just cut taxes especially on wealthy people, investors, and corporations, that alone will not just drive economic growth, but create so much revenue that those tax cuts will pay for themselves. 

We know supply side economics doesn't work at least in the sense that those tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Especially when you're also doubling government spending, which is what the Reagan Administration did as well. 

Current tax rates range from 10-34%. We know that doubling the lowest tax rate and giving lower, middle income people a tax hike whether you're talking about a flat tax, or the Thom Hartmann plan and going back to the Eisenhower tax rates won't work either. Most Americans who aren't either upper class or upper middle income simply can't afford afford any tax increases right now, especially at the levels of 50-100%. 

The best income tax system that we could have is where rates are low on everyone, to encourage economic growth, spending, and investment. Where you force government to pay for everything that it does regardless of what the tax rates are, to keep debt and deficits down. And you eliminate most if not all the tax loopholes in the system, especially if they don't lead to any economic growth or investments and just gives us higher deficits and debt.