Thom Hartmann: 'What if There Really Was a Liberal Media?'

Source:Thom Hartmann Program- Apparently right-wingers who believe Liberals control the media. Apparently they're not familiar with The Wall Street Journal, FOX News, talk radio, Newsmax, etc. 

Source:FreeState MD

"Thom Hartmann tells us what everybody would know if we really did have a liberal media.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!"

From Thom Hartmann

The fact is, we don’t have a liberal media, or a conservative media and certainly not a libertarian or socialist media. But what we do have is a media that is corporate owned, but by corporations, that represent all of these political factions. As well as public media and locally controlled local media, that is also publicly funded.

And what corporate media does, is reports things that they believe are important. As well as what sells and if they are politically slanted, reports things they believe will hold their political side. And hurts the other sides. But since we live in a liberal democracy, a liberal society, a free society, we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. That allows for all of these different political factions, to have their own political news sources.

We have a private, free media that  even allows someone like Thom Hartmann, on the Socialist-Left, to come from his vantage point and argue against corporate media. And in favor of what is publicly owned media and even state-run media. That would report the things that he and his political allies see as important. And perhaps ignore things that he believes aren’t in the public interest. And perhaps even censor reports that he disagrees with.

Thom Hartmann: Ronald Reagan, Billionaires & Privatization

Source:Thom Hartmann is no fan of privatization. And perhaps private wealth in general.

Source:FreeState MD

“Thom Hartmann says billionaires are taking over our commons through privatization and its not a good thing.”

From Thom Hartmann

Where Thom Hartmann loses me, is when he says that making a lot of money is essentially a bad thing. That people with so much money and independence and not needing government to meet their basic financial needs, is a bad thing. And that we would be better off if we didn’t have people who were so financially independent. And you do that by taxing them so high and funding a welfare state to do that for them. And together as a country we would put all of our resources together into one pot with government deciding what we need to live well.

What I would do instead, is have an education and job training system, that empowers people to be as successful as possible. Which would be my alternative to this that allows for people to be successful as they possibly can. Even financially, but where they would still have to pay taxes based on what they consume from society. But not having them pay taxes so high just because they make a lot of money, which is different.

I’ve said this before, but the problem with America is not that we have too many people who make a lot of money, but that we do not have enough. Which is why we have this income gap. And you close the income gap by encouraging more people to be successful in America.

If you want the democratic socialist superstate that Thom Hartmann and his allies advocate for as often as they can and go out of their way to say: “Look at Sweden, they do things so much better than we do. We should be like them.” And have taxes so high on everyone to fund this superstate, someone still has to pay for that. You need an economy producing the tax revenue to fund the social welfare system that takes care of everyone. Instead of allowing for people to be able to take care of themselves and produce what they need for themselves.

America is not Sweden. We’re not a country with a lot of land, but a very small population that is energy independent and is a net-exporter of energy. We’re huge country with a huge population. And because of that Americans need to be independent in order to live well. Which means you need an economic system that encourages economic freedom and independence.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur & John Iadarola: ‘Internet Porn Blocked All Over Britain’

Source:The Young Turks going off on the British ban on porn. (Pun intended)

Source:FreeState MD

“British Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday that if you want those naked moving images, you’ve got to say it. In what is being called “most dramatic step by the government to crack down on the ‘corroding’ influence of pornography on childhood,” Britain plans to make it so that every person must tell their internet provider whether or not they want to have access to pornography on their computers and smartphones.”

From The Young Turks

Just when you think government is already too big in Britain right now, now Brits can be arrested for what they do in their private time as well as being taxed up to their, let’s say shoulders (to keep this post clean) but big government statists in America must be loving this right now.

Here’s a country where big government statists on the Left and Right could live happily together, or at least find things they like about Britain. A country where people don’t have much individual freedom in their economic or personal lives.

Can’t really talk about the First Amendment, free speech and free assembly arguments about this decision in Britain. For one, I’m not a lawyer and try my damndest to not play one on TV or even online, or when I blog. Second of all, not familiar with the British free speech rights and I don’t even believe they have one. The United Kingdom is not a constitutional republic or democracy. They are a constitutional monarchy and don’t even operate under a constitutional form of government.

For all you so-called Progressives in America who in Britain would be called Social Democrats, who want us to be like them: imagine if we had their form of government, but in our country with our population. And if that is not a big enough nightmare for you, I’ll make it worst and perhaps deny you months worth of needed sleep. Imagine someone from the Christian-Right coming to power as President of the United States. Now they would be able to do this unilaterally and not even not have to consult Congress about it, but not have to worry about a constitutional court challenge.

Big government is exactly that: government that is too big. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called big government whether it comes from the Right or Left. It is government trying to micro-manage the life of their people, because they think the people are too stupid to perhaps even cross a busy street on their own and now we need federal street crossers to decide who can cross the street and when. That would be a nanny state at its extreme, but what they are doing with porn in Britain is not that far off.

Thom Hartmann: 'Teddy Roosevelt & The Living Wage'

Source:Thom Hartmann- Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt. And no, Progressive Republican is not an Oxymoron.

Source:FreeState MD

"Thom Hartmann tells us the concept of a living wage is nothing new and it was a Republican who first coined the phrase." 

From Thom Hartmann 

"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living-a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age." 

Source:AZ Quotes- Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

From AZ Quotes

I don’t think that some right-wingers and business’s understand that it’s in their best interest to pay their employees a living wage and not something that would make them rich or even middle class to start with. Because their employees would work harder and be more productive, because they know they are now getting a real stake in the company. And perhaps not need that other job and put all of their work time into that one job. It would also save taxpayers money, because we would end up spending less on public assistance as a result. And more jobs would be available because fewer people would have multiple jobs.

I don’t believe anyone is entitled to at the least a middle-income. That is something that you earn by the job that you have and the work that you do. But we are all entitled to be fairly compensated for the work that we do. 

You’ll never ever convince me that grocery store cashiers and Walmart associates, should only be paid $7.25 and hour or less, when the work that they do is essential for their employer staying in business. And you want to make the free market argument, fine! Just make a real one and have that market includes more people than just the employers. Include the workers and the consumers as well and you can leave out government, except for regulating.

But as long as taxpayers are subsidizing employers including large for-profit business’s and even their employees cost of living and we have a regulatory state and a public safety net and everyone is paying taxes for the public services that they receive, we don’t have a free market. And neither does any other large developed country in the world either. 

As long as that public-private/market is the economic universe that we live in, government has a role here to see that everyone has not just an opportunity to work, but an opportunity to pay their bills and not have to live off of other taxpayers. Because their employers drastically underpay them for the work that they do.

Thom Hartmann: On Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman

Source:Thom Hartmann looking into the case of George Zimmerman.

Source:FreeState MD

“White people don’t understand white privilege." 

From Thom Hartmann

Actually, what President Obama said was what would have been the case if the gun was in the other hand and the gun owner was Trayvon Martin and not George Zimmerman, would the outcome had been the same, had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman, because Mr. Martin thought he was being physically threatened by Mr. Zimmerman, even if he didn’t have actual reason to believe that.

And then the President basically implied that if was an African-American man and not a Caucasian and the Caucasian had shot and killed the African-Americans for the exact same reasons, in a deep red state, that of course the African-American would’ve been found guilty of murder there.

AlterNet: Sean McElwee: 'The Case For Censoring Hate Speech'

Source:Lighthouse Insights- the entrance sign of the Socialist Utopia. A place that simply does not exist.

Source:FreeState MD

“For the past few years speech has moved online, leading to fierce debates about its regulation. Most recently, feminists have led the charge to purge Facebook of misogyny that clearly violates its hate speech code. Facebook took a small step two weeks ago, creating a feature that will remove ads from pages deemed “controversial.” But such a move is half-hearted; Facebook and other social networking websites should not tolerate hate speech and, in the absence of a government mandate, adopt a European model of expunging offensive material.” 

From the AlterNet

When you live in a liberal democracy take like America you should be aware that most of the things that you receive in life aren’t free. That you are one of today three-hundred twenty-million people and that we simply do not see things the same way. And all live in our different factions, or cultures, or cliques, however you want to put it. And what may sound like the truth to you, may sound like hate speech to someone else. But since we are a liberal democracy we all have the freedom of thought and speech. As long as we aren’t acting on these ideas that could physically hurt innocent people, or put them in danger.

The First Amendment like the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment and all our constitutional amendments are not absolute. Meaning they can be regulated, but not to the point that they limit individuals in how they live their own lives. For you can say whatever you want and think whatever you want. But you can’t order someone to be killed or physically assaulted without a price for that. You can own a gun in America, but you can’t use that gun to murder someone. We all have the right to privacy to protect law enforcement from breaking into our homes without just-cause. But if they have good reason to believe that someone’s health or life is in danger, they can break the door down to save that innocent person. And if they believe you are at fault, they can arrest you.

Since freedom is not free that means we have to put up with sometimes even things that we do not like, including speech. That you are free to live your own life. But so is everyone else whose not incarcerated. So they may do things or believe in things that may offend you and you have the right to disagree with them. And take another side, but you cannot stop them from what they are doing or what they believe in. Simply because you do not like what they believe in and what they said.

The First Amendment is a perfect example of that. As long as we aren’t inciting violence or threatening to hurt or kill innocent people. Or yelling fire in crowded spaces when that fire doesn’t exist, we are free to believe in and say what we think. Which is what makes our country a liberal democracy. Along with our other constitutional rights, as other countries are a little more statist and collectivist and put more authority and faith in the state over the individual.

As far as I’m concern if you do not believe in freedom of thought and speech and choice more broadly than just abortion, you are not a Liberal. You cannot be a Liberal if you do not believe in a high degree of personal freedom. When you put the state over the individual when it comes to personal freedom, you are not a Liberal, but more of a Statist. Even if you are pro-choice on abortion, marijuana and sexuality.

If your idea of liberalism is that it is the job of the state to protect people from having to see or hear things that may offend them, than you are not a Liberal. And sound more like a Religious-Conservative, or some other type of Statist, than you do a Liberal. And even if we were to outlaw hate speech, good luck with that with our first amendment, who would be the judge of what is and what isn’t hate speech. Partisan right and left-wing ideologues who see it as their job to eliminate speech they disagree with. While they are protecting the speech that they want. Which is what would happen in our current divided political system and culture.

Liberal democracy is all about freedom of speech, thought and expression. Again as long as we aren’t threatening to physically harm or kill people or inciting violence and yelling fire in public places. Which gives Americans the right to be, quite frankly assholes, as long as they aren’t physically threatening people. Which is why we have freedom of speech as well as hate crime laws. So people do not have the right to physically harm to kill others because they simply to not like them because they are bigots. One of the differences between living in a liberal democracy and some type of authoritarian state. Where you can be arrested for your own views.

Bing Crosby & Grace Kelly: High Society (1956)

Source:Ana Pailos Pensado - Bing with The Amazing Grace in High Society. 

Source:The Daily Journal

“The lovely Grace Kelly in her final film role before she retired from acting and became Princess Grace of Monaco.” 

From Veronique Laurent

I'm willing to bet the cameraman (assuming it was a cameraman) and the photographer (assuming it was a male photographer) couldn't wait to see The Amazing Grace Kelly in front of that pool to get the great shots that they did of her. Perhaps they were even holding out and refusing to leave, before they got these shots.

Source:Asteroid Style- The Amazing Grace Kelly was High Society. 

I’ve only seen bits and pieces of High Society, which to me anyway as someone who isn’t at least a full-time movie critic, is a pretty overrated movie. But I kind of like this scene, because Grace plays a somewhat stuck up, spoiled, young woman, who doesn’t like her parents that much, especially her father and they don’t approve of her completely. And she wants to get pass that and decides the way to move pass that, is to marry a pretty boring man who no one close to her is crazy about.

Grace Kelly’s character’s ex-husband (played by Bing Crosby) sees right through that and is telling her, that she could be a special person if she just let her guard down and have feeling for other people’s feelings.

Bing’s character was being sort of a constructive critic towards Grace’s character. A new man Tracy’s life (played by Grace) Mike Connor (played by Frank Sinatra) also sees Tracy’s wall that she has built around herself and tries to knock it down in this movie as well.