Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

NBC Sports: NFL 1980-AFC Final-Oakland Raiders @ San Diego Chargers: Dick Enberg Intro

Source:NBC Sports intro for the 1980 AFC Championship.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Battle of the Bay. Chargers and Raiders. AFC Championship Game. The great Dick Enberg on the mic with the late great Merlin Olsen. Also notice the fan showing a poster with the N logo even though NBC already switched to a new logo (not bright) 

I OWN NOTHING!! EVERYTHING BELONGS TO NBC/COMCAST/NFL AND ONLY THEM!!”

From Jean

Dick Enberg with a real good intro here. Not his best, but I believe he was one of the better announcers at the intro because of his voice, his passion for sports, perhaps especially football and he knew what he was talking about as well. So he brought a realness to his work.

As far as this game, I wish I could’ve found something more than just this intro, but this was all that was available at this time. But the Raiders-Chargers AFC Final was a classic matchup of a very good and talented, well-coached intelligent team in the Raiders. Against a very explosive offense especially in their passing game in the Chargers. Who also had a good running game, but never played enough defense to get actually get to a Super Bowl. And still have only been to one Super Bowl in their entire history.

National Review: The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell- 'Margaret Thatcher Was a Good Socialist'

Source:The National Review- The Last Word With Lawrence (never call me Larry) O'Donnell.

Source:National Review

I’m glad to see MSNBC produce an editorial in favor of socialism, because it goes to my overall argument of how far to the left of American liberalism that they tend to be and represent more of the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. Or the Democratic Socialist Party or Green Party, than they do Liberal Democrats. But having said that I’ll give credit where credit is due. And give Larry O’Donnell (as I call him) credit for when he says that Margaret Thatcher didn’t eliminate British socialism as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom.

But what Prime Minister Thatcher did was simply reformed socialism by getting rid of the sad socialism in the British economy and government. By privatizing industries and requiring people who can work and take care of themselves, to actually do that for themselves and nat be able to collect public assistance indefinitely. But left the Socialism that works in Britain as it has to do with their welfare state like their National Health Service. But things like government spending went up when she was Prime Minister and never had to deal with an opposition controlled Parliament, which is what American president’s have to deal with on a regular basis.

Even though the United Kingdom has a Conservative Party and a Labour Party, they are basically divided between two Socialist parties ideologically. At least how they would look in the United States. With the Conservative Party looking like FDR New Deal Progressive Democrats. Big believers in central government and the welfare state to take care of people. But also big believers in a strong national defense, a robust internationalist foreign-policy, strong law enforcement, rule of law, tough on terrorism and so-forth.

Things that McGovern Progressive Democrats in America today who are different from the FDR Democrats, tend not to be in favor of. Except as it has to do with the welfare state and the big central government. So Maggie Thatcher looks pretty conservative by British standards, but Britain is essentially a Socialist state whether the Conservatives or Labour’s are in power and they do not look very conservative in America.

As Larry O’Donnell said, Prime Minster Thatcher as much as she went off against socialism, she was really going after the bad socialism in Britain. But had strong socialist views herself and wanted to keep the socialism in Britain that works as it get’s to their welfare state. But eliminate the bad socialism in the country. Like the state-owned industries and indefinite public assistance for people who are able to take care of themselves.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

BBC: Brian Magee Interviews Noam Chomsky- 'The Ideas of Noam Chomsky'

Source:BBC News- Professor Noam Chomsky, being interviewed by BBC News, in 1977.
Source:FreeState MD

"An old interview mostly on Chomsky's linguistics work, philosophy, and some remarks on political views near the end.

Note: the video is taken from Youtube, where it was broken into five segments, when I re-merged the segments the audio got a little strange, so that before the next segment's audio starts the audio from the last segment jumps in for a fraction of a second. Its tolerable though."

From  Supremo Ichigo

I was in a debate about a year ago with someone who self-describes their politics as libertarian. And we were talking about Professor Noam Chomsky and this person was describing Noam Chomsky’s politics as socialist. And I told this person that Professor Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist. Which might sound like an oxymoron, because how can someone be both a Libertarian and a Socialist. Libertarians are always looking to shrink the size of government and Socialists are always looking to grow the size of government.
Source:BBC- interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky

Libertarians tend to think that government is way too big and Socialists especially in America tend to think that government is way too small. This person said that: “you can’t be both, it’s sort of one or the other”. And what I trying to get across to them and not believing I was successful, is that you can be both as long as you aren’t socialist or libertarian on both economic and social issues. That you have to believe in a high deal of individual freedom at least as it relates to personal or economic freedom.

So what is a Libertarian Socialist: It’s someone whose liberal libertarian on social-issues. Meaning they do not want government interfering with our personal lives including as it relates to prohibition. And in America are even in favor of gun rights, against the War on Drugs, censorship even as it relates to hate speech. Doesn’t really sound like someone who would be a Progressive today, but what they do have in common with Socialists  (again, Libertarian Socialists ) is they both have a big role for government in the economy.

People who are liberal-libertarian on social-issues, but socialist on economic policy. And believe in things like the welfare state, high taxes for social spending and so-forth. Big regulations on private enterprise, big believers in the right to organize and so-forth. Libertarian socialism is a form of socialism at least in its liberal not paternalistic form. That government shouldn’t try to run our lives, but be there to provide us the services that can’t be trusted to the private sector.

Libertarian socialism is the only form of socialism or that I respect as a Liberal. Because even though they believe in a big state as it relates to the economy, they do not believe that government should be trying to run our lives for us and are not pure statists at least. And even believe in a high deal of economic freedom as long as it’s highly taxed and regulated. So no one get’s left behind in society. This is not my philosophy, but it’s a lot better from what we are hearing from so-called Progressives today who seem to be believe in a big role for government in the economy, but also in our personal lives. As far as what personal choices we are allowed to make.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1982-Baltimore Blast @ New York Arrows: First Half


Source:Joey Teefizz- New York Arrows.

Source:The Daily Journal

“MISL Soccer in New York-please see the great contest at halftime with Shep messing in goal with civilians shooting on him…then see Zungul go wild…”

From Joey Teefizz 

The New York Arrows were around in the early days of the MISL. Late 1970s to mid 1980s or so. Pro indoor soccer has never caught on in New York. Which is a shame, because New York is a great sports market. A great pro soccer market and the biggest sports market in America. 

And indoor soccer is a great sport when played well and is a very exciting fast-paced game. But only the New York Red Bulls of the MLS an outdoor soccer league has ever caught on and done well in the New York/North Jersey area.

Unlike the Baltimore Blast, that have been around since I believe day one in the MISL, which was 1979 and are still in business today. And like the San Diego Sockers are the class of American indoor soccer. As far as the type of fan support that they’ve had and all the championships that they’ve won.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-12/22/84-New Jersey Cosmos @ Los Angeles Lazers: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- you tell me who Wes McLeod is.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“MISL Soccer Cosmos at Lazers-good quality tape with some good goals…small crowd as usual in LA.” 


Two of the better clubs and better markets in the MISL. If soccer can’t succeed in Los Angeles and the New York/New Jersey area, it won’t make it in America, period. Because those markets are so big and they are very good soccer markets anyway for both soccer and arena soccer. 

I think the MISL knew this even back then, but for whatever reasons were never able to market their clubs very well. Similar to what the NHL went through up until the 1980s or so and a big reason why it took them forever to expand and become a big league. Which they didn’t do until the early 1970s. But the NHL figured it out and almost forty-years later the MISL is still struggling just to survive. 

But having successful clubs in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, to go along with their traditionally strong markets would help a lot with that.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Center for American Progress: David Madland & Kira Walter- 'Top 6 Policies To Help The Middle Class That Won't Cost Taxpayers a Penny'

Source:Center For American Progress- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
"Strengthening America’s middle class should be elected officials’ top priority. Incomes are either stagnant or falling for the middle class, while the costs of life’s necessities continue to rise. As a result, the risk of the middle class falling behind economically is growing. A weak middle class hurts all of us by stifling our country’s economic growth and undermining our democracy.

Unfortunately, reducing the deficit has distracted our political leaders from this pressing challenge and has made it seem like little can be done, as Congress blocked or failed to act on important legislation to help the middle class. In reality, however, there are many things that the federal government can do to help the middle class.

Rather than make excessive short-term budget cuts as we are currently doing, we can and should make needed investments in the middle class, such as expanding access to preschool and child care, as part of a package that reduces the deficit over the longer term, as CAP has proposed on many occasions. Furthermore, there are a number of things that policymakers can do that won’t require any additional expenditures." 


"In "The Green Collar Economy", Center for American Progress Senior Fellow, acclaimed activist and political advisor Van Jones delivers a real solution that both rescues our economy and saves the environment. The economy is built on and powered almost exclusively by oil, natural gas, and coal—all fast-diminishing nonrenewable resources. As supplies disappear, the price of energy climbs and nearly everything becomes more expensive. With costs and unemployment soaring, the economy stalls. Not only that, when we burn these fuels, the greenhouse gases they create overheat the atmosphere. As the headlines make clear, total climate chaos looms over us. The bottom line: we cannot continue with business as usual. We cannot drill and burn our way out of these dual dilemmas.

Instead, Van Jones illustrates how we can invent and invest our way out of the pollution-based grey economy and into the healthy new green economy. Built by a broad coalition deeply rooted in the lives and struggles of ordinary people, this path has the practical benefit of both cutting energy prices and generating enough work to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral."

Source:Center For American Progress- former Obama White House advisor Van Jones.

From the Center For American Progress

Instead of taking the approach of how can we empower government to take care of everybody or take care of the people who are currently struggling and create all sorts of new government social programs, I'm going to take the approach (to quote Jerry Maguire) how can I (meaning government in this case) help you. And I would add to that what government do to empower the millions of Americans who need it help themselves. And have the same freedom both economic and personal that the rest of the country has.

And it gets to things like infrastructure investment rebuilding this country,

Universal lifelong education and job training so all Americans always have the ability to improve themselves.

Tax reform so we have more companies investing more money in America, especially American companies. And we tax people based on what they take out of society not what they contribute to society.

And a national energy policy that finally moves this country towards energy independence by utilizing our vast menu of natural resources.

So if you are looking for the Next New Deal, keep looking, I'm sure you'll find it.

If I were to write an Economic Bill of Rights for the United States and I may do that for this blog in the future, it would be about education and the right to organize for all workers, but that all workers would also have the right to not join a union and operate as a free agent. And not subjected to union dues, but just wouldn't get the benefits that come with being in a union as well.

The education part is also key that all Americans would have the right to a lifelong education no matter the income level or their parents. Always having the ability to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held accountable for what they do with those opportunities for good and bad and in between. So what government would be telling the people that they everyone in America who is physically and mentally able would have the ability to be successful in life. No longer stuck in poverty because they come from and live in rural or inner-city America.

What government will also do is subsidize people's success and for any American who is working would always make more than Americans who are unemployed.

And universal access to education and job training would especially be available for people who are not working, but need to be, too young or without the resources to retire.

We have an economic system like this and real tax-reform that taxes everybody by what they takeout of society, instead of what they contribute to society and we would have a true liberal democracy (I know Social Democrats and right-wingers hate that term, but get use to it) Where all Americans would have access to both economic and personal freedom.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Merv Griffin Show: U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy Interview: Civil Unrest, Vietnam War (1967)

Source:Merv Griffin Show- U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (Democrat, New York) on The Merv Griffin Show, in 1967.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“This is an excerpt from an interview with Senator Robert F. Kennedy eight months before he was assassinated in Los Angeles. He hadn’t yet announced his candidacy for president but he very eloquently and insightfully addresses the problems facing America at the end of the 1960s. Merv Griffin had over 5000 guests appear on his show from 1963-1986…


Bobby Kennedy who wasn’t a Baby Boomer, more of a depression baby, doing a good job speaking for the Baby Boom generation. Not the whole generation, but certainly the New Left that came of age in the 1960s and early 1970s. Whose parents were from the Silent Generation and World War II, who saw America except for the Counter-Culture Movement as just fine the way it was and were happy with the status quo.

The Baby Boom Hippie parents, now seeing their kids as people who came of age during the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement and seeing all sorts of poverty in America and thinking they could get involved in these things and change America for the good. Who saw the status quo in American life as not worth conserving. And wanted to create a new America for themselves.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

NBA-TV: NBA 1971-NBA Finals- Milwaukee Bucks vs. Baltimore Bullets: Highlights



Source:NBA-TV- the Bucks and Bullets for the 1971 NBA Championship.


“The 1971 NBA Finals was the played at the conclusion of the NBA’s Silver Anniversary season of 1970-71. The Western Conference Champion Milwaukee Bucks, who were born just three years earlier, swept the Eastern Conference Champion Baltimore Bullets in four games. Baltimore had dethroned the 1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knicks to get to their only NBA Finals appearance (as a Baltimore based franchise). This would be the last time that both participants were playing in their first NBA Finals until the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat got together in the 2006 NBA Finals.”


The Bullets never seemed to be able to get into sync either offensively or defensively against the Bucks in the whole 71 NBA Finals. The Bullets were either getting stopped and turning the ball over, or giving up big buckets to the Bucks.

The Bucks big three especially of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson and Bob Dandridge and the only question about the Bucks would be, who was a bigger part of the big three: Kareem or Oscar. because you could make a good case they are the two best players who’ve ever played, as well as the best center and point guard of all-time.

The Bullets were really on defense all four games of this series. Because the Bucks were doing what they wanted to do really the whole time. They knew who get to the ball to and when on offense and who to stop on defense: “Let Oscar run the show and hit Kareem deep in the post.” Where the Bullets had no one who could handle him. And when the Bullets spend too much attention either trying to defend Kareem or Oscar, because there wasn’t really much they could do against, the opened up things for Dandridge.

GK Greger: FDR Fireside Chat: 2nd Bill of Rights

Source:GK Gregor- Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) President of the United States (1933-45)
Source:FreeState MD

“FDR: Jan 11,1944 Fireside Chat. The 2nd Bill of Rights or Economic Bill of Rights”

From GK Gregor

I don’t think Franklin Roosevelt would ever call himself a Socialist or ever did, but his 1944 2nd Bill of Rights Speech, is what American Socialists (democratic, generally) are talking about as far as their idea of freedom. The freedom not to have to go without the basic necessities of life in order to live well. And that it’s the job of government (especially the national government) to see to it that no American is hungry, doesn’t have an adequate place to live, not cold, not too hot, has affordable health care and insurance, a pension, etc. That’s what FDR was advocating for in this speech.

Monday, April 22, 2013

NBA-TV: NBA 1971-NBA Finals- Milwaukee Bucks vs. Baltimore Bullets: Highlights

Source:NBA-TV with highlights of the 1971 NBA Finals.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“The 1971 NBA Finals was the played at the conclusion of the NBA’s Silver Anniversary season of 1970-71. The Western Conference Champion Milwaukee Bucks, who were born just three years earlier, swept the Eastern Conference Champion Baltimore Bullets in four games. Baltimore had dethroned the 1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knicks to get to their only NBA Finals appearance (as a Baltimore based franchise). This would be the last time that both participants were playing in their first NBA Finals until the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat got together in the 2006 NBA Finals.” 

From Ginoong Kamote  

The Milwaukee Bucks playing the Bullets for some reason down at Cole Fieldhouse, down in College Park Maryland, which is like 40 miles from Baltimore. Normally the Bullets played their home games at the Baltimore Civic Arena, which is in downtown Baltimore.

Source:NBA-TV with highlights of the 1971 NBA Finals.

The Bullets never seemed to be able to get into sync either offensively or defensively against the Bucks in the whole 71 NBA Finals. The Bullets were either getting stopped and turning the ball over, or giving up big buckets to the Bucks.  

The Bucks big three especially of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson and Bob Dandridge and the only question about the Bucks would be, who was a bigger part of the big three: Kareem or Oscar. because you could make a good case they are the two best players who’ve ever played, as well as the best center and point guard of all-time. 

The Bullets were really on defense all four games of this series. Because the Bucks were doing what they wanted to do really the whole time. They knew who get to the ball to and when on offense and who to stop on defense: “Let Oscar run the show and hit Kareem deep in the post.” Where the Bullets had no one who could handle him. And when the Bullets spend too much attention either trying to defend Kareem or Oscar, because there wasn’t really much they could do against, the opened up things for Dandridge.

MSG: NBA 1973-ECSF-Game 1-Baltimore Bullets @ New York Knicks: Highlights

Source:Hal 15 Greer with the Bullets-Knicks NBA Playoff series from 1973.

Source:The Daily Journal

“1973 ECSF Gm. 1 Bullets vs. Knicks”


The Bullets-Knicks rivalry in the 1970s, was one of the best rivalries in the NBA and represents something that has almost disappeared in the NBA, which are rivalries. 

The 1970s and 80s, you had the Celtics-Lakers, Celtics-Knicks, Celtic-76ers, 76ers-Bullets, Bullets-Knicks and perhaps a few other great rivalries in the NBA that you don’t see that much anymore in this league with the great history that it has. Baltimore and New York are roughly two-hundred miles from each other and these were two of the better franchises in the NBA in the early 1970s. 

The Bullets were one of the better franchises in the NBA in the 1970s, period. Both in Baltimore and then later in Washington, actually Landover, Maryland to start the 1974 season. They relocated to Landover thinking they could hold onto the Baltimore market and capture the Washington market, but that’s a different story. 

For the Bullets to achieve a lot of the success they had in that decade, four conference championships and winning the NBA Finals in 1978, they had to beat the Knicks to do that.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

CBC Sports: NHL 1982-Stanley Cup Finals-Game 4-Long Island Islanders @ Vancouver Canucks: Highlights


Source:CBC Sports- Game 4 of the 1982 Stanley Cup Finals. 
Source:The Daily Journal

“Highlights from the deciding Game 4 of the 1982 Stanley Cup Final. New York Islanders vs. Vancouver Canucks. Islanders win the Cup.”

From CBC Sports 

The NHL and NBA are the only leagues where you’ll see a great team with a great record, great talent and coaching, versus a team that just barely made the playoffs and play each other in the league championship. And made the playoffs with a losing record and made the playoffs basically because more than half of the teams in each conference make the playoffs.

The 1982 Islanders, were truly a great team, which is why they won their second straight Stanley Cup. But another reason why they won their second straight Stanley Cup in 1982, is because they played the Canucks. That only won 30-80 games in 1982 and got hot in the playoffs. 

Had the Islanders played a good team like the Edmonton Oilers or someone else, maybe they don’t win their second straight Stanley Cup in 82. They probably would’ve, but it would’ve been a much better Finals and looked like a real Stanley Cup Finals.

Friday, April 19, 2013

CNN: 'OJ Simpson On The Run- Ford Bronco Chase: June 17th, 1994'

Source:CNN covering the most famous Ford Bronco chase in American history. Well, at least in Los Angeles history.

Source:The Daily Journal

"Football and film star O.J. Simpson led police on a low-speed chase along the Los Angeles freeways shortly before his arrest for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman. This video, aired on CNN, features the sound from OJ's phone conversation with Homicide Detective Tom Lange. Listen as the accused killer tells Lange that he is the one who "deserves" to be hurt."

From Z-Facts 

The Los Angeles Police Department following what would become the most famous white, Ford Bronco in American history, because in the Bronco had perhaps the most famous two-time murder suspect in it, O.J. Simpson.

Source:CNN covering the most celebrity auto chase in American history. Or at least in the history of Los Angeles.


 I remember this very well, because I had just graduated from high school. And was in Delaware vacationing with my family and I believe I was watching the NBA Finals on NBC. And then of course NBC News breaks in with live coverage of this chase which was different from other Los Angeles car chases, which of course aren’t rare in Los Angeles.

What made this care chase different was that it involved a celebrity and NBC News and other news organizations breaking into a championship series, or whatever they were showing and stopped showing, to cover this tabloid story.

This is just another example and perhaps the biggest example of what news has become in America. At least TV news, where it’s not what’s important to cover that is important, but what is popular to cover and how you make the most money. Covering that story to spend so much time and energy covering one murder trial. Not that it shouldn’t of been covered, which of course the supporters of the coverage will say. But to cover it basically at the expense of every other news story thats going on.

So-called reality TV, which of course isn’t reality TV, but tabloid TV, didn’t start in the late 1990s or 2000s, with Survivor on CBS. It started in the mid 1990s in 1994 with OJ Simpson. And his famous duel murders and his Trial of The Century. Before social networking and before Google, but right in the early days of cellphones and the Internet. And when cable news was becoming very important with the 24 hour news cycle.

You also have to remember that OJ, was not just an actor, but an accomplished one and perhaps not someone you want doing your taxes for you, but smart enough and with the personality to get people’s attention and put the focus on him. He knew he was going to jail and perhaps never coming out and had money and a gun in his truck. And I guess was going to make a run for Mexico, but perhaps smart enough to know he probably wasn’t going to make it.

The Ford Bronco Chase, was the ultimate publicity stunt and so-called reality TV. But it wasn’t what is called reality TV, which is not reality TV, but tabloid TV. Where producers of those shows encourage people to act out to get the most ratings possible.

But this chase was real reality TV. A grown man, who up to this point was a very well-liked and respected man. Who had a Hall of Fame NFL career and one of the top 5-10 running backs of all-time. Who put together a solid sportscasting career with NBC Sports and acting career and did commercials. Who was going through a horrible time, I imagine and perhaps feeling horribly guilty about his two murders and perhaps lost it and didn’t know what to do about it. But again, we are talking about an actor here and this could’ve simply been a publicity stunt. But this was real reality TV and not made up.

Kelly’s Life: Fall Outfit of The Day- Skinny Denim Jeans in Boots


Source:Kelly Loves Beauty in skinny denim jeans in boots.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Fall Outfit of the day: Blouse, Boot, Skinny jeans”


Denim is so versatile now that American women can not only go to ballgames in their skin-tight jeans and boots, but can dress like they’re going to the club or a nice restaurant, instead of a ballgame, or going to the club or a party or a nice restaurant after the game. Instead of just wearing t-shirts or jerseys, with sneakers at the ballgame, with the baggy jeans or running pants. As you see with the woman in this photo as she’s sort of dressed up her skin-tight jeans, with a nice top and her brown riding boots.

Source:The Daily Journal- Going to a game, or going to a nice party, one of the advantages of denim jeans, is that they're so versatile. You can dress them down like you are just picking up the kids at from school or going to the grocery store. Or you can dress them up and even dress skin-tight, denim jeans up, looking very sexy with your legs, butt, and crotch, while also looking dressy and looking like you are going out or going to the office in them. And they go perfectly with boots, just like shorts with sneakers.

This is a closer look at Kelly in her skinny-denim jeans in boots. And I have to say for a "like totally awesome valley girl, whose also as cute as a little girl, she's very sexy in those jeans in boots.
Source:Kelly Loves Beauty in skinny denim jeans in boots.

As far as this outfit and to be completely serious (nothing new or no new or real risk taking here) not to put Kelly down, but skinny jeans in boots have been around for about ten-years now. A common look for sexy women especially in the fall and winter for both practical as well as stylish reasons.   
The practical reasons are perhaps less obvious. They keep women warm in bad cold weather. Their legs that is especially the skinny denim because how tight they are and do not leave much in any room for cold air get air to get in. And the boots are great to walk around in bad weather, because you get better traction.    
The stylish reasons are obvious. I mean seriously what better way for a sexy woman to show off her legs than in skinny jeans. Whether they are denim or leather, because again how tight they are and how they show off your legs.   
And then you throw in boots either over or under the jeans and you have a very sexy stylish look, that will make women who aren’t as sexy or dressing much more conservatively jealous. And have guys checking you out especially when you’re on the move.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

C-SPAN: Professor Eric Foner- Lectures in History: Socialism in America


Source:C-SPAN- Columbia University History Professor, Eric Foner.
Source:FreeState MD

“Columbia University history professor Eric Foner examines the rise of socialism in America in the early 20th century. He talks about the Socialist Party in New York City and Milwaukee, and looks at the Socialist Party of America presidential campaigns of Eugene Debs.”

From C-SPAN 

I actually saw this lecture from Eric Foner back in the summer of 2012. And I would love to see a lecture from Eric Foner in person at some point. But what I want to do in this post is to explain why socialism hasn’t quite caught on America. And the history of it in this country and where it is today. Which is actually alive and doing well considering how individualistic of a country America is both Liberals and Conservatives. And I write about that as a non-Socialist, as a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, if you prefer) whose interested in political philosophy and political history.

I agree with Eric Foner that socialism in the early twentieth century became about the Progressive Era of Teddy Roosevelt. And then later became the New Deal with his cousin Franklin. And actually got some, let’s call them socialist welfare state or safety net programs into law. And then moved to the Fair Deal with Harry Truman and then later the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson with more welfare state or safety net programs. And that socialism essentially became about the welfare state.

In the mid-20th Century, American socialism became about government doing the basic human services that Socialists do not trust the private sector to do. But that the private sector and American capitalism was here to stay. That they should make the best of capitalism. And not try to destroy it, which is basically how Scandinavia deals with capitalism as well.

But where I disagree with Historian Foner, is that socialism in the twentieth century graduated and became what we now know as liberalism today. That liberalism is somehow about the state and government and what government can and should do for the people.

Everywhere else in the developed world, at least, Social Democrats, people that Americans might call Socialists, are considered center-left in the country. Countries like Britain, France, Germany, (just a few examples) the Social Democrats are the center-left party in their country. Whereas Liberals, especially in Germany, are considered to be the center-right party. Germany for example, it’s the Liberals who believe in liberal democracy. Whereas the Social Democrats obviously want Germany to be a social democracy. But Germany at least since the 1950s, has been a functioning, center-right, liberal democracy.

American leftists always talk about how America should be like the rest of the developed world. Well, they should start with political labels and how they label Americans politically, including themselves. Make sure that they correct that, because Liberals believe in liberal, not social democracy. And Progressives believe in progress, not big government and a big national state.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The Ring of Fire: ‘RFK, Jr: How To Save American Democracy’

Source:The Ring of Fire- Robert F. Kennedy JR. talking about American democracy.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. gives a speech to a crowd at Mass Torts Made Perfect about how to save our Democracy from Republicans, the Tea Party, and corporate raiders.” 


Robert F. Kennedy is essentially talking about the Tea Party Right in America. These so-called Conservative populists, that have a big hold on the Republican Party today and essentially labelling them for what he believes they are, which are corporatists, who believe in a corporate state in America, that would replace our liberal democracy, that’s based on individual rights, not corporate rights.

I actually agree with a lot of what Bobby Kennedy isa saying here. I’m sure there a lot of blue-collar, prop-union, voters, in the Tea Party movement. But their leaders are corporatists. You see that now in all of these Republican controlled legislatures that are now controlled by Tea Party people, like in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Republican legislatures that want to make it harder for Americans to vote, at least young Americans, who tend to vote Democratic. As well as make it harder, if not impossible, for workers to organize and bargain collectively.

The Doors: Live at The Roadhouse (1968)

Source:The Doors Live At The London Roadhouse (1968)

Source:The Daily Journal

“Rare color footage of The Doors performing at the Roundhouse, London, 1968-09-06. Not the same show filmed for “The Doors Are Open” documentary. An awesome close-up of Jim Morrison singing When The Music’s Over.”

From La Fantasque 

I’m thinking the cameraman, or perhaps the camerawomen, really liked Jim Morrison and was really attracted to him. Because in the first two minutes of this show alone, you see several closeups on Jim Morrison’s leather legs and leather suit, sitting on the stool with his legs sticking out in his skin-tight black leather jeans and black leather jacket, with his concho belt. And that’s exactly the reaction that The Lizard King (also known as Jim Morrison) wanted. Of course he wanted to be known for his music, but he was playing a character as well which was The Lizard King, a cowboy, rock and roll hero, where his superhero uniform was his skin-tight, black leather suit, where he wanted people to listen to his music, but also bring attention to his skin-tight leather legs and butt. For about two years, the man must have smelled like a luxury car, being in head-toe black leather almost everywhere he went, including to church, weddings, airplanes, the beach, even, etc.

Source:The Doors Live At The London Roadhouse (1968)
It has been said that Morrison, wore the skin-tight leather pants, (leather jeans. really) with the concho belt, because he wanted to highlight his crotch. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense, because if you watch this show, or Live at The Hollywood Bowl, or The Doors in Copenhagen, or The Doors in London, The Doors on Ed Sullivan, just to use as examples, there are several closeups upfront of Morrison in his leather suit and right on his legs, butt and crotch. I mean if you’re actually attracted to the man, watching all of this footage is a great way to see him.

As far as this show, I think it’s The Lizard King as it his best. Just wish this show was in color and since it was done in 1968, that would’ve been a fairly easy thing to do. But with Morrison, you get great vocals and his role-playing and acting and moving around and the dancing.

And Ray Manzarek, if anything who had a better singing voice than Morrison, at least singing blues, doing a great job on the keyboards. When The Music is Over, and Love Me Two Times, I think are their best songs in this show.

Love Me Two Times, comes with a great music video as well. And you have Morrison going off the cuff and doing a little story telling as well. And they finish with, well The End, what else. Which is their great war song, even though it wasn’t written directly for the Vietnam War. But considering this was 1968, the timing of this song was simply perfect.

As what can be said about a lot of The Doors performances, I just wish they were shot in color. Which is one reason why Oliver Stone’s version of The Doors, whatever you think of the movie, is actually very important. Because it gives you a very good idea of what The Lizard King was like in color. Even with Val Kilmer, being a much larger and taller man than Jim Morrison.

But it would be nice to see a colorized version of a lot of these performances. But the sound of these performances and how Morrison sounded and how the band played, is very good, even in black and white. Which doesn’t affect the sound of these shows. But the shows would’ve been better had they been done in color. Like with The Hollywood Bowl, Ed Sullivan, Smothers Brothers, Jonathan Winters. And maybe a colorized version of this show, will be available at some point.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Laura Flanders: Richard Woolf’s Cure For Capitalism

Source:Laura Flanders talking to proud Democratic Socialist Richard Woolf.

Source:FreeState MD

“Employment’s up, wealth’s up, but the benefits of both are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Welcome to capitalism, says GRITtv regular, Richard Wolff who suggests some alternatives, including “worker self-directed enterprises” if we want to democratize the economy, and US society.
GRITtv regular, Richard Wolff is the author of Capitalism Hits the Fan (Olive Branch Press, 2009) and, most recently, Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism (Haymarket Books, 2012). Watch the entire conversation, about the state of capitalism, WSDEs (worker self directed enterprises) and democratizing the US economy at GRITtv.orgDistributed by OneLoad.com.”


I think when most Americans (perhaps not most Europeans) when they think of a Socialist, they think of someone whose against private enterprise and wants the national government to be in complete control of the economy. But the fact is today in 2013, most Socialists, including Socialists in China and Cuba, believe in at least a certain amount of private enterprise, individual freedom and choice, as well as private ownership.

Richard Woolf has an excellent definition of a Socialist: “Someone who believe in socializing, believes in the community when it comes to the economy and economics.”

This basically means a Socialist believes that everyone in society has a right to live and be treated well and not to have to go without the basic necessities of life. And that it’s the job of the national government to see that everyone has what they need to live well in society.

CBS News: Walter Cronkite- Announces The Death of President John F. Kennedy


Source: FRS Daily Journal Plus- Longtime CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite-
Source: FRS Daily Journal Plus

Newscasters and journalists in general are trained to never show their feelings and give commentary. That old Joe Friday saying of just the fact. For all of you Dragnet fans, but these people are exactly that, people and they have feelings too. And when you’re reporting on the death and not just death, but the assassination of someone you personally know, like, respect and even admirer, all things that Walter Cronkite felt about John Kennedy and then throw in the fact they were the same age and from the same generation, how you not show your human side in this situation.

And you’re reporting on the assassination of someone who is just 46 and you’re same age, to go along with all the other factors, I would’ve been disappointed had Cronkite not given people at little into what he was feeling about this horrible tragedy. Cronkite was at the top of his game during CBS News’s coverage of the JFK assassination that he anchored. And part of Cronkite’s greatness was that he was a human being the whole and not afraid to let others know that.
CBS News: Walter Cronkite- Announces The Death of President John F. Kennedy


Saturday, April 13, 2013

James Miller Center: President Lyndon Johnson – Speech on Voting Rights (1965)

Source:James Miller Center- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) 36th President of the United States (1963-69)

Source:FreeState MD

“Johnson states that every man should have the right to vote and that the civil rights problems challenge the entire country, not one region or group. The President asks Congress to help him pass legislation that dictates clear, uniform guidelines for voting regardless of race or ethnicity and that allows all citizens to register to vote free from harassment.” 


This was really Lyndon Johnson at his best and I’m not sure any other American politician could give a speech about civil-rights as well or better then President Lyndon Johnson because he got to the whole core of the movement.

LBJ understood what civil-rights was really about, which  was really equal rights for all and that all Americans should be treated equally under law. Because all Americans have the same constitutional rights under law. Which means government can’t under the U.S. Constitution discriminate against anyone based on race. (To use as an example) and not deny us our rights under law based on race.

Which is why the 1964 Civil-Rights Act was so important, why the 1965 Voting-Rights Act was so important and why the 1968 Fair-Housing Law was so important. Because Americans were being denied their civil-rights under law in America simply because of their race and complexion and for no legitimate reason.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Real Time With Bill Maher: Debating The Second Amendment

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (Republican, California) Chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Source:FreeState MD

“Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) stood up for your constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to bear arms on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.”


My main point to and response to Representative Darrell Issa and MSNBC host Alex Wagner is both a personal, as well as philosophical argument: anyone who believes any amendment in the U.S. Constitution is absolute, is not a constitutionalist. And anyone who would either throw out the current U.S. Constitution or completely rewrite it and move America towards some type of social democratic government or some type of socialist state, is obviously not a constitutionalist either.

Comedian Bill Engvall who is about as redneck and Tea Party populist as anyone can be (if you don’t believe me, just ask him or watch his comedy routine) had the best point about the 2nd Amendment during this clip when he said that he believes in the right to self-defense and wants the ability to defend himself and his family. But there should be some real limit to how many guns that any American should be allowed to own and what types of guns that Americans should be allowed to own. Which to put it simply: he believes in commonsense gun control. The redneck standing up for the U.S. Constitution.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Gun Control & Dumb Gun Laws

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher talking about the lack of gun control in America.

"A recent "New Rules" from Bill Maher's HBO series, "Real Time." Bill takes defenders of stupid gun laws to task regarding idiotic pro-gun legislation." 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan: ‘What You Need to Know’

Source:Thom Hartmann with a look at United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) & United President Ronald Reagan (Republican, California)

Source:FreeState MD

“Thom Hartmann takes a look back at the political careers of British Prime minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan.”


I agree with Thom Hartmann (for perhaps the 1st and last time this year about anything) about the debt and deficits that then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative Government piled up in Britain in the 1980s. Not that different from the debt and deficits that President Ronald Reagan piled up in the 1980s, or President George W. Bush pilled up in the 2000s.

I’m also not here to make Margaret Thatcher look like a Goddess or Saint. (And I could make a joke about that, but I’ll spare you and her) I’m just going to talk about the situation that she inherited in 1979 when she became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the country she left when she left office in 1990.

In 1979, Britain was not just a socialist state, (yes, a democratic socialist state) but a socialist state that was drowning in its own socialism. They had ridiculous rates on deficits, debt, inflation, interest rates, high unemployment, and poverty. The beautiful, thriving, Britain that we saw (at least when the sun was out) in the 1990s and 2000s, is not the Britain that we saw in 1979, the early 1980s, or even mid 1980s.

Remember, Labour Party Leader Tony Blair didn’t run for Prime Minister in 1997, to return Britain to socialism, with state-run banks, energy companies, airlines, etc, where people who were unemployed or on Welfare, never had to go  back to, or even go to work. He just presented a center-left alternative to Maggie Thatcher’s individualistic conservatism. Remember the New Labour in Britain in the late 1990s and 2000s. This wasn’t a socialist movement at all.

For Britain to get moving again or no longer be a declining power, but again a western power can be respected in the world again and not just by Europe and America, but the rest of the developed world, she had to get the economy moving again. And that meant a lot more Britons working and earning their own living and a lot more economic privatization in the economy. And that meant a lot of short and long-term pain for millions of Britons. But her economic strategy was successful