Brave New Foundation: Beyond Bars

Source:Brave New Films- a man being interviewed for this documentary.

"Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the country's biggest for-profit prison company and calls human beings in lock-up a "revenue stream." Don't let them profit off imprisoning even more. ACLU  

This video is part of the Prison Profiteers series produced by Brave New Foundation's Beyond Bars campaign in partnership with the ACLU and The Nation. Narration by Henry Rollins. Research help provided by Prison Legal News." 

From Brave New Films

I like this approach because rehabilitation is sort of like learning a different language. The earlier in life you do that, the easier it will be and once someone is already part of the criminal justice system, it's hard to get them out and prevent them from going back in. 

But if you can prevent so called risk at youth from going into the criminal justice system, through what's called crime prevention which targets risk at youth, making sure they are getting the education that they need, with things like extra tutoring that they may need or after school programs, again so, they can get extra help, supporting their parents so they can do the best job possible in raising their own kids, helping them get a job or a better job through job training, so they don't have to live in high crime neighborhoods with high poverty, we can prevent risk at youth from having to go into the criminal justice system in the first place.

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart- 'Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech'

Source:The Daily Beast- "They may think shutting down NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly's speech was standing up for their principles, but protecting respectful dialogue is as important as ever." From The Daily Beast.

Source:FreeState MD

"Tell that to Ray Kelly. Yesterday the New York City police chief was prevented from speaking on Paxson’s campus by students angered by the NYPD’s racial profiling. Those students have good reason to be angry. Unfortunately, they’re the latest in a long line of campus activists who believe their anger trumps other people’s free speech. 

Netanyahu from speaking at Montreal’s Concordia University. In 2009, activists at the University of North Carolina shut down a planned speech by anti-immigration congressman Tom Tancredo.

There’s something deeper going on here. On the surface, campuses like Brown’s seem hegemonically liberal. But in my experience, that apparent consensus conceals a crucial gulf between students and faculty who hold left of center opinions but accept basic norms of fair play and students who consider freedom of speech a scam employed by the powers that be to perpetuate their racism/sexism/classism/imperialism/homophobia. Convinced that freedom of speech is an illusion denied them outside the university gates, they take revenge in the one arena where the balance of forces tilt their way. And they thus inject into their own campuses the totalitarian spirit they believe characterizes society at large. It’s no surprise that such activists targeted Ray Kelly, and that for years they tried to bar military recruiters. What better way to deny your government’s basic legitimacy than to turn the people it deputizes to protect you into pariahs." 

From The Daily Beast 

"A Disgraceful Decision by NPR" O'Reilly

Fired National Public Radio analyst breaks down events following Muslim comments on 'The O'Reilly Factor'" 

Source:The State of The Union- Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor in 2010, talking about being fired by taxpayer funded National Public Radio.

From The State of The Union 

I hate the term "campus liberals" to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, than they do Liberals. I’ll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy, because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn’t have any opposition. 

So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.  

My main response to Peter Beinart is that people who oppose right-wingers that they dislike right to free speech in America, aren't Liberals because free speech is as liberal a value that exists anywhere in the world. But instead these young folks for the most part are left-wing fascists, or acting left-wing fascists. It's Communists or Neo-Communists who are on the Far-Left perhaps everywhere in the world outside of Cuba and North Korea, who oppose free speech. Not Liberals because Liberals believe in liberal democracy. And free speech is as liberal as any value that you have in a liberal democracy. 

NBC Sports: MLB 1986-5-03-GOW-Anaheim Angels @ Milwaukee Brewers: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports- MLB Game of The Week.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"1986 05 03 NBC GOW California Angels At Milwaukee Brewers" 

From NBC Sports

Source:NBC Sports- the Angels and Brewers from 1986.

The 1986 Angels were a very good, if not great all around team: hitting, pitching, and defense that should’ve at least gotten to the World Series. But of course lost three straight games in the ALCS after having a 3-1 lead in that series.

The Angels, who contended both in 84 and 85 in the AL West, which was back before the wildcard came into both leagues, looked like the team to beat in the AL West both seasons. 1986, they weren’t expected to win the AL West, especially the way that they did by being in first place most of the season. But in 86, they put it together for the whole season, both with their offense and pitching. And managed to avoid fading in August and September like they did in 84 and 85. 

The 1986 Brewers, were somewhat in transition. Especially with their pitching and weren’t contenders at all and about a 500 ball club.

The North Star: Dario Cancovic: Capitalist Oligarchy & Socialist Democracy

Source: Portside.Org- Marxists?

Source:FreeState MD

If you want to know what Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists should be about at least in America, look no further than Senator Bernie Sanders. The only self-described Democratic Socialist in the United States Congress. But you could also look at former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich who was essentially redistricted out of office, or look at Ralph Nader. And why do I say this, because these men aren’t great fans of capitalism, or private business and certainly not corporations. But understand economics well enough that you must have a certain level of private enterprise, to have a strong functioning economy.

Democratic Socialists in America understand economics well enough to know to have a functioning economy you must have at least a certain level of private enterprise. That there is indeed a limit to what government, even a Federal government can do for their people. Who need the freedom to succeed and be able to make a living for themselves and run business’s and so-fouth. Central-planning, when it comes to economics, tends not to work. And you need at least a certain level of competition to have the strongest economy possible. Where as many people as possible can succeed in it.

Now where democratic socialism comes in, is to make sure that the private sector is regulated by the public sector, is taxed by the public sector to fund all sorts of things that Socialists believe that government should be doing for the people. But also so you have a strong enough economy to fund the centralized superstate that Socialists, tend to be in favor of to provide the human services that people have to have in order to live well anywhere. Like healthcare, health insurance, education, public transportation, childcare and the regulators that the central state in the social democracy needs to make sure that private business are behaving and not abusing their workers and their consumers.

Europe, is full of social democracies like this. Especially in Scandinavia, but Britain is another good example. And these countries are functioning developed countries. But a big reason for that is because of their economies all have capitalist economic systems with strong private sectors to provide the central state with the revenue it needs to do the things for the people that Socialists want done.This is what democratic socialism is about in Europe and what it should be about in America. Which is a socialist form of capitalism. Which I know sounds strange, but it is true.

Because socialism, is a broader political philosophy, not just an economic system. But once you go past this and say capitalism is too risky and too many people get hurt while a few do very well and start talking about nationalizing industries if not all industries and having state take over the economic system, you don’t produce a socialist utopia. But you get an inefficient North Korea, or China from the 1970s. Or the old Soviet Union. A failed gigantic superstate trying to do too much for it's people.
Source:The School of Life

NBC Sports: MLB 1985-GOW-6/22-New York Yankees @ Detroit Tigers: Full Game

Source:The Daily Journal

1985 is the perfect example of why MLB should’ve went to the three division format in both the American and National League with the playoff wildcards well before 1994. Because you had four ninety win teams in 1985 and each division champion would’ve had at least ninety wins. The Toronto Blue Jays in the AL East, Kansas City Royals in the AL Central, and the Anaheim Angels in the AL West. The New York Yankees as a wildcard team in 85 would’ve have more wins than every division winner except for the Blue Jays. If you go with two wild cards in each league, the Detroit Tigers would’ve just barely misses the AL Playoffs in 85 with 84 wins, a game behind the Chicago White Sox. 1985 was a great year for MLB and the Yankees and Tigers were both in the playoff race that year. And played each other on NBC which is this game.

The Globalist: Uwe Bott- 'The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform'

Source:The Globalist- our Founding Liberals. Sorry, Socialists, live with it.

Source:FreeState MD 

"If anything, the chronic re-occurrence of the U.S. government’s failure to approve a budget as well as the repetitive quarrel over raising the country’s debt ceiling demonstrate one thing clearly: Constitutional reform is the priority in the United States. Without it, the U.S. will indeed become a failed state.

Such reform should not be difficult. At the U.S. state level there have been 230 constitutional conventions since the founding of the country, according to Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas and author of Our Undemocratic Constitution. The State of New York is currently on its fifth constitution. If the 50 states can do it, why not the nation as a whole?

Other countries, too, have a record of frequently changing or adopting new versions of their constitutions. In contrast, the constitution of the United States of 1787 seems to enjoy a sacredness only matched by some religious books.

The last change to the U.S. Constitution, the 27th Amendment, was approved in 1992. Hard though it may be to believe, it dealt with the oh-so critical issue of increases in salary for members of the U.S. Congress not taking effect until the term following the increase.

How much more myopic can one get? Maybe the country should have saved its action-oriented powder for something more earthshaking." 

From The Globalist

I’ve blogged about this before, but the problems with America do not have to do with the United States Constitution. But the some of our so-called leaders and public officials who in some cases represent a hard fringe on the Far-Right, or Far-Left. Some represent the people who send them to Washington. And some actually represent their constituents pretty well. And deserve to be reelected over and over. And to say that we should change our Constitution just because there is precedent to do so, is not a reason.

It is like saying: “I had steak for dinner last night so I might as well have it again tonight.” Without looking at what else is available to eat that night and what would be the best thing to eat that night. And if you are going to do something drastic like changing the U.S. Constitution, the document that fathered liberal democracy in the world and what a lot of other democracies are built around with all the rights and freedom and what comes from that, as well as the checks and balances and separations of powers, you gotta have a hell of a reason to change such a great document. That has only been changed I believe twenty-seven times in two-hundred and thirty-seven years.

To say we must change the U.S. Constitution because we have a faction in one party in one chamber of one branch of government, essentially holding the rest of the government and I don’t like using this word unless I’m actually talking about real hostages, but holding the rest of the government back, is crazy. The answer is to vote out people who aren’t governing responsibly.

All of these Congressional Democrats who supported the Affordable Care Act, voted for it and even wrote parts of it. To change a Constitution, just because House Republicans don’t like one law, is not a good reason. What you do in that situation is what Democrats are doing now and hold them accountable: “These are the people who are preventing the Federal Government from reopening, because they’ve failed over and over to get a law killed that they hate.” And you keep pointing them out in public until their leadership gets the message. And says: “Enough is enough. We aren’t going to let this fringe ruin us in the next election.” And you hold them accountable again at the ballot box in 2014 and get them replaced by responsible adults.

If you love social democracy so much, how about living in one for a while. And see if you like that more than America. And live somewhere where elections do not have consequences. And votes in a way do not matter. Because if a majority of people and that majority just might be one and they decide that current government in power is not popular, new elections can be called right away even if there is already a new government.

America, is a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal Democracy. And we are different and we have basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us. Like being abused my a majority and we have minority rights in this country. And just because 50.1% of the country thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to do something, doesn’t necessarily mean they get to rule over the 49.9% of the country that says: “How we live our own lives, is none of your damn business. So why don’t you butt the hell out.” As we are seeing with the gay rights cases that going through the court system including gay marriage. Where gay marriage bans are getting thrown out. Even gay marriage bans that were popular and voted for by the will of the people, so to speak.

Social democracy, is essentially rule by majority including the majority being able to rule over the minority. And being able to tell them how they can live their own lives. And that is just not how liberal democratic America rolls. (So to speak) We say power to the individual and let them govern themselves as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. And we have constitutional rights that can’t be taken away from us that protect our privacy. And our ability to live our own lives that can’t be taken away from us by a popular vote. 

And as I said before the problem with America, is not our Constitution. But some of our public officials who do not understand it who need to be kicked out of office.

Russia Today: Anissa Noauai Interviewing Noam Chomsky- ‘Democrats are Really Moderate Republicans’

Source:Russia Today- Professor Noam Chomsky being interviewed by President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

Source:FreeState MD

“Noam Chomsky, the famous political commentator and MIT professor emeritus, has long said, “There used to be a kind of a quip that the United States was a one-party state, with a Business Party that had two factions: the Democrats and the Republicans.” But now, he says, there is still one party, but with only one faction. “It’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans,” he said. “Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right.” Find out what else Chomsky had to say about the state of American politics and the current government shutdown in his sit-down interview with RT’s Anissa Naouai.”

From Russia Today 

"Noam Chomsky: Democrats are really moderate Republicans

This channel provides bite-sized (mostly) speech or interviews of Slavoj Žižek and Noam Chomsky - the two philosophers with different views on a lot of issues. We hope this process helps to digest their opinion or views on specific issues." 

Source:Russia Today- talking about MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

From The Žižek/Chomsky Times 

RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

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.[8][18] 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.[19][20][21] 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 (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly 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[58] and conspiracy theories.[64] 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.[71]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[72] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][73] 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.[74]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[75] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[76][77] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[78] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[79][80] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[81][82] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[83][84] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

This is an area where I would disagree with Noam Chomsky and no this is not the only area. But if this were the case that "Democrats are really Moderate Republicans" as Professor Noam Chomsky said, we wouldn’t have a government shutdown right now. Because suggesting the Democrats are really Moderate Republicans, is saying that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the same thing. Same party which is clearly not the case and Professor Chomsky essentially represents the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, even though I do not believe he’s officially a Democrat.

But Noam Chomsky comes from the Far-Left in the American political spectrum that includes Democrats like former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich and some other members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. And when you are that far to the Left, anyone not as far to the Left of you looks moderate or, conservative. The Far-Left in America represents maybe 10-15 percent of the country and simply not large enough to govern a major political party. Especially the largest political party in America the Democratic Party.

I’ve blogged about this before, but the Democratic Party is made up of essentially four factions:The JFK Liberal (Center-Right faction) that I come from, the FDR/Truman/LBJ Progressive, (Center-Left faction)  and the social democratic/democratic socialist, (FarLeft faction) Eugene Debbs/Henry Wallace/George McGovern and today Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. And the centrist wing the Blue Dogs in Congress who could be mainstream Republicans as well. Who tend to represent right-wing areas in the South. 

The Democratic Party isn't  a moderate party, but a politically diverse party that tends to be led by Center-Right Liberals and Center-LeftProgressives, at least when we win. The modern Democratic Party is not that different from the Republican Party pre-1990 or so, that had a Center-Right and Center-Left in it, of Conservative and Progressive Republicans.