Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Ana Kasparian: 'Free Speech Has a Price'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski talking to Ana Kasparian.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] 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." 

From Wikipedia 

"So where is the line drawn on freedom of speech here in the US? Or better yet, who decides what is socially acceptable speech or not? Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks discusses." 

From Russia Today

As long as people don't threaten to kill, physically or libel other people or yell fire like in a theater, people can pretty much say whatever the hell that they want to in America, without facing consequences at least from government. It's that simple and that includes hate speech and the Westboro Church case back in March is a perfect example of this. 

You can call people whatever the hell you want to and say whatever the hell you want to them, as long as you don't threaten to physically hurt them, kill them or libel them. And then they can say whatever the hell that they want to in response in reply, under the same certain conditions in response. Thats what free speech is about. 

It's not just about political speech or religious speech for Christians (of course) hat some so-called Christian-Conservatives  may suggest. That however doesn't mean that when people say something that offends or that other people disagree with, that they are aren't potential consequences for what people say, nor should there be in any liberal democracy. People can respond to each other indefinitely as long as they don't threaten to physically hurt or kill someone or libel them. 

Yes, free speech does come with a price but that doesn't mean its not worth paying. People have to understand when living in a liberal democracy that before they say something that may offend others. Or others may disagree with, especially controversial things that may be viewed as bigoted. That the people who are offended or disagree with you may respond and hit hard back. So if you are going to be very expressive and feel the need to express yourself on controversial issues that you better have thick skin and not be easily offended. Especially when people say things to you that you know is wrong and if anything is ignorant. 

Me personally, as far as I'm concern, people can say and should feel free to say whatever they want to me. Just as long as they say it to my face and not behind my back. For one thing I pretty much know when someone has an opinion about me and what it is. And when I disagree with it, so what everyone is entitled to an opinion. And when they are right I take it for what its worth and move on with my life. It's not the act thats the problem but the coverup thats the problem. A lesson from the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. 

So to answer the question free speech does come with a price, the price being that people can talk back. Which is a good lesson in my case like my blog (to use as an example) I allow people to say whatever they want to about it, now I prefer that they are on topic and not make it personal. They also need to know however that if they are going to hit me, that I'll probably hit back. Unless they are so ignorant that they aren't worth my time. And by the way I'm thick skin and I hit hard, not bragging just a fact. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Do We Need Less Democracy?'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski, interviewing James Poulos.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] 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." 

From Wikipedia 

"Peter Orszag, the former Office of Management and Budget chief for the Obama Administration has written an op-ed entitled "Too much of a good thing: why we need less Democracy". Orszag argues that our Congress is paralyzed by gridlock and argues for expanding automatic stabilizers, having a progressive tax code, unemployment insurance or linking the payroll tax holiday to the unemployment rate. But does this approach of putting more power into the hands of even fewer, really sound like a good idea? James Poulos, Host of The Bottom Line and Reform School on PJTV weighs in." 

From Russia Today  

"Why we need less democracy.

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

I know that such ideas carry risks. And I have arrived at these proposals reluctantly: They come more from frustration than from inspiration. But we need to confront the fact that a polarized, gridlocked government is doing real harm to our country. And we have to find some way around it."

You can read the rest at The New Republic 

"Peter Orszag spoke about government reform and fiscal responsibility. In his remarks he outlined the Obama administrations proposal to cut federal spending by asking agencies to identify under-performing programs in order to reach a 5% reduction. He also answered questions from the audience." 

Source:CSPAN- at the Center For American Progress in Washington.

From CSPAN

So since Congress has a 15% approval rating (give or take) and the 15% of the country either hate government and don't want them to do anything, (or are drunk or high, perhaps escaped mental patients who are willing to like anyone who doesn't view them as crazy) that since the Federal Government is so unpopular, we should just give more power to an institution that is very unpopular, for very good reasons.  

Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results." If it's broke, break it more, perhaps even destroy it, which is essentially what former Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag is saying here. 

The way to fix government is not to make it more powerful. If the voters want better representatives and government, that's what they'll vote for. That's how democracy works, that's especially how liberal democracy in America works. 

Richard Nixon Library: Oral History- Tim Naftali Interviewing George McGovern

Source:Richard Nixon Library- Former U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee George McGovern, talking to presidential historian Tim Naftali, in 2009. 

"George McGovern recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, 26 August 2009, the Richard
Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum."

From The Richard Nixon Library 

“George Stanley McGovern, who rose from small-town roots in Avon and Mitchell to the highest heights of American politics, died Sunday morning at a Sioux Falls hospice facility from a combination of medical conditions associated with his age. He was 90.

Though he was known mostly for his unsuccessful 1972 presidential campaign, McGovern was more than that. He was an accomplished student and debater during his school days in Mitchell; a World War II bomber pilot decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross; a doctorate-level scholar; a history professor; the rebuilder of the South Dakota Democratic Party; a U.S. representative; director of the Food for Peace program in the Kennedy administration; a U.S. senator; an icon of the anti-Vietnam War effort; a lifelong crusader against the scourge of hunger; a United Nations delegate and ambassador; the author of 14 books; and, in his later years, an elder statesman who remained a sought-after speaker and commenter on issues of the day.” 

Source:The Mitchell Republic- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) running for President in 1972.

“Sen. George McGovern gives the victory sign to throng of about 20,000 persons assembled at Madison Square garden, June 14, 1972 in New York for rally in support to his attempt to win the democratic presidential candidacy. (AP Photo/Dave Pickoff)”

From The Mitchell Republic

George McGovern was someone with one hell of a political and professional resume, who represented South Dakota in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as a Leftist Democrat in one of the reddest states in the union. And yet he represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years.

Mr. McGovern served as Director of the U.S. Food For Peace Program, who won the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1972, who rebuilt the Democratic Party almost on his own, by bringing in so many new Democrats, who thought the Democratic Party was still the Dixiecrat Party that didn’t welcome ethnic or racial minorities or women, and so-forth.

Senator McGovern benefited the Democratic Party by 1976 with Jimmy Carter being elected President in 1976, who was a Progressive Democrat from the South and not as far to the left as the national Democratic Party. George McGovern was a man who truly believed in public service, that it was about representing the public and not furthering your career financially.

George McGovern grew up in the New Deal era in the Democratic Party era, the Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt and thought this was the politics of the future. And something that he believed in and was the dominant political philosophy up until the late 1960s or so.

The problem that Senator McGovern had was that by the time he was a national Democrat and becoming a major contender For President of the United States, Senator McGovern was not a New Deal Progressive Democrat, but more of a Henry Wallace Democratic Socialist, during a time when the country was moving to the right on economic policy and when high taxes, Welfare, big government were becoming unpopular.Yet

When the country was moving right economically, the George McGovern and the Democratic Party was moving left, thanks to the New-Left and Baby Boomers of the 1960s and 70s. Which made it almost impossible for a McGovernite like a McGovern to win nationally and win statewide perhaps in most states.

The main difference between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern’s landslide presidential losses, is that Senator Goldwater was ahead of his time and the country wasn’t quite ready for his let’s call it conservative-libertarianism in 1964. At the heart of the Great Society era in the country.

But in Senator McGovern’s case, the country moved past his and LBJ’s progressivism and Wallace/McGovern democratic socialism. And instead we’re looking for fewer taxes and more economic development and growth in America.

What I call the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, that’s different from the FDR or LBJ wing, was forming, but hasn’t had the power to nominate another McGovern Socialist to run for President in the Democratic Party.

The Far-Left of the Democratic Party tried with McGovern again in 1984, Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008. But none of these Far-Leftist Democrats, have come even close to being a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. And we are now seeing McGovern-Democrats running for President in social democratic third-parties.

George McGovern’s legacy for the Democratic Party, is that he expanded it. Taken it away from the right-wing Religious-Right of the South and giving the Republican Party a Christmas gift from hell. And turning the Democratic Party into more of a Northern and West Coast party. That relies on minorities and women, to be successful politically.

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.

AFP News Agency: 'French Left Claims Senate Win in Poll Blow For Sarkozy'

Source:AFP News Agency- The Bernie Sanders of France?

"France's left-wing opposition struck a blow against embattled centre-right leader President Nicolas Sarkozy's hopes for re-election Sunday, winning a historic victory in a senatorial vote.Duration... 

From the AFP News Agency 

What is considered Center-Left in France, would be their Socialist Party. (Led by Francois Hollande) And what would be Far-Left in France, would be their Communist Party and other hard-core Socialists, who perhaps don't self-describe as Communists, but who certainly have Communists leanings. 

What's Center-Left in France, is Far-Left in America. Just one of the many difference between France and America politically and governmentally. We have a lot of Socialists in America: perhaps 15-20% of the voting electorate and maybe 3-10 Democrats. The difference is American Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics as socialist. They tend to self-describe as progressive or liberal, even though a lot of what they believe is very regressive and illiberal. 

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Scott Wallace- 'Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?'

Source:The Real News- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vice President Harry Truman & Secretary Henry Wallace.

"WHEN VP WAS PROGRESSIVE Pt.2 Scott Wallace: It is a fight to create space for the progressive voice." 

From The Real News

What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Democratic Socialists (which is what the Henry Wallace Progressives were) in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.

Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even the so-called Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. 

The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours, is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.

RT America: 'Socialism in America'

Source:RT America- Niki Korokawa talking to President Vladimir Putin's RT America, about socialism in America.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Could that be the answer to bring America out of its economic trouble? Is America headed towards socialism? Is it really that big bad wolf people make it out to be? RT's Cedric Moon hosts a panel of Nicki Kurokawa and Michael Prysner where they debate the pros and cons of socialism in America." 

From RT America 

Similar to conservatism and libertarianism, socialism is a very diverse political philosophy with all sorts of different political factions. There isn't one definition of socialism, just like there isn't an official definition of conservatism or libertarianism. 

I put socialism into three different political factions: Social Democrats.Democratic Socialists, the most popular faction of socialism not just in America, but everywhere else, at least in the developed world. And then Communists who represent the authoritarian wing of socialism and tell people if you give the government your freedom and individualism, the government will take care of you. Which is essentially what Communist government's tell their people. 

And then you have people that I call at least Neo-Communists, people who aren't completely authoritarian and even anti-democracy, but try to limit opposition, individual choice, and individualism, to protect their regime. Venezuela is an example of a Neo-Communist government.

There isn't one sent of Socialists, just like there isn't one set of Conservatives. You have Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and then you have Communist leader Fidel Castro, from Cuba. They share certain principles as they relate to economics and wealth, but Senator Sanders believes not just in democracy, but social democracy and President Castro doesn't believe in any democracy at all. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Show & Tell: Death Penalty, Barbaric?'

Source:Russia Today- the Sexy Blonde?

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Now that Troy Davis has been executed, despite the amount of doubt surrounding his guilt, we asked if you if you think the US should still use the death penalty. Take a look at our responses. As always thanks for your responses and here's our next question for you. We discussed accusations by the GOP that President Obama is waging class warfare by proposing raising taxes on millionaires. So what do you think? Is Obama a class warrior?" 

From Russia Today

Before I get into my position on the death penalty I just want to lay out as one of maybe five people who haven't followed the Troy Davis case. All right, maybe ten people in the country. The Far-Left has been all over this story, like water on fish. I absolutely have no idea whether Mr Davis is guilty of the murder he was convicted of. And he's not the reason why I'm writing this post. But I will admit, that without this story I wouldn't be writing this post at this time. 

The death penalty is not an issue I think that much about except when I'm watching true crime shows and thats the only time. And I've basically has the same position on the death penalty since my late teen early 20s. If you believe in human life and that all innocent life is worth cherishing, which is what I do, then there needs to a the toughest standards for people who don't and will intentionally take innocent lives, for whatever the reasons. Which is who and what the death penalty is for: for people who don't respect innocent lives to the point that they'll intentionally take them regardless of the reasons for doing so.