TIME Magazine: Lilly Rothman: See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970

Source:TIME Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society. Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s. American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing. You would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine. But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.
Source:CNN

Dandelion Salad: Elizabeth Schulte- 'Socialism According to Eugene V. Debbs'

Source:Dandelion Salad- Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debbs.

Source:The New Democrat 

"What did the man who Bernie Sanders today claims as his personal hero really stand for? Elizabeth Schulte tells the story of American socialism’s best-known figure.

IT’S NOT your typical presidential candidate who identifies as a socialist, but Bernie Sanders does. A poster of Eugene V. Debs, the popular Socialist Party leader of the early 20th century, hangs on his office wall as a tribute to Sanders’ self-proclaimed hero.

Like Debs, who ran for president five times, Sanders is also running for president. But that, my friends, is where the similarities end.

The socialism of Bernie Sanders—who says he’s running as a Democrat to shift the debate to the left–is fundamentally different from that of Eugene Debs, who committed his life to spreading the ideas of revolutionary socialism. Sanders is promoting something that falls far, far short of the fundamental change that Debs fought for. Sanders relegates socialism to the realm of nice ideas that can be talked about, but never really be implemented—while he accepts what little the Democratic Party is willing to concede.

For Sanders, the working class is a “constituency,” a backdrop to the political campaigns he runs and the legislative work he does. For Debs, the working class was in the foreground of everything he hope to achieve—because he believed, as a convinced Marxist, that workers have to make the fundamental and lasting transformation that he called socialism." 

From Dandelion Salad

So I guess at least according to Elizabeth Schulte, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Eugene Debs and to the left of Progressive’s Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. And I’ll explain what I mean by that.

Eugene Debbs, Marxist, had he ever became President of the United States and had the support of Congress, would’ve outlawed capitalism, private enterprise and that includes property rights. Perhaps, but not guaranteed, just short of taking people’s personal ownership of their personal property away from. Meaning an individual, could own their own home and car (to use as examples) but those things would’ve been made by state-owned companies.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist: Democratic Socialists, believe in at least a certain level of personal autonomy. That includes both personal and economic freedom. That even includes the ability to vote for opposition parties and opposition parties that are on the other side of the political spectrum. 

Bernie, doesn’t have a problem with private enterprise and even capitalism. Just how the resources and income and distributed. So if you’re doing well in America through the private sector, great. According to Bernie, but you’re going to pay enough in taxes to see that those who are struggling are also taken care of.

Bernie Sanders, is not running to completely change the American economic system and destroy the liberal capitalist model, our liberalized economic system, that has liberated so many people out of poverty in America. 

What Senator Sanders wants to do is add a socialist component to our liberal economic system built around a large central government. To see that no one has to go without and live in poverty. As well as invest in our American capitalist private enterprise economy. Things like education, infrastructure, energy, immigration, better trade deals according to Bernie. So that more Americans can succeed in our private sector. And not have to live off of public assistance to take care of them.

Prakash RP: A Defence of Communism

Source:Prakash RP-

Source:The New Democrat

Communism, at least in how its been practiced up until the last thirty-years, or so with the Soviet Union collapsing and the People’s Republic of China moving to a form of state capitalism and the same thing with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba, has been a government philosophy built around a big centralized state. That the central state, is the country and owns the country and everyone inside of the country are essentially subjects of the central state. With the central state being responsible for the welfare of the people and taking care of the people. While at the same time preserving the communist state. Even if that means locking people up and killing them if they are seen as threats to the communist regime.

Now if this if the definition of communism, then I believe only a Communist, or Marxist could defend that. But lets say I’m wrong about what communism is and I don’t consider myself to be an expert on communism. And that it really is something a lot more positive than that. And a communist state, is not what we’ve seen North Korea collapse into. Keep in mind, the word communist comes from community. It that a country is a community and that members of that community share with each other for the betterment of society as a whole. So no one has to go with out, or has too much. And that the central government, is in charge of making sure that everyone has what they need to live well in that community. That they have enough money, food, housing, health care, education, etc.

But if my second definition of communism is correct and the first one is wrong, then what makes communism better, or different from socialism? If the difference between a Communist and Socialist, that the Socialist tends to be more democratically oriented? That they believe in multi-party systems and elections? A list of both welfare and individual rights and that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs? That the Communist, believes in the welfare of their people and that everyone should be taken care of. But is so in love with themselves and their political system, that they believe they are entitled to absolute power and don’t deserve to have any opposition whatsoever?

If I’m wrong about the differences between a Socialist and I mean Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to use as an example and a Marxist like Fidel Castro, or someone like that and that Communists, do believe in at least a certain level of both personal and economic autonomy, which means freedom at least in America, then why do you need both socialism and communism, if they’re the same thing? And I welcome anyone who actually understands communism to answer them on this piece. My guess is they aren’t the same thing. That their good reasons to be a Socialist, because again Socialists believe in at least a certain level of democracy and freedom. Both personal and economic freedom. As we see with Bernie Sanders and social democracies in Europe.
Source:British Pathe

Movie Zya: Video: The Graduate (1967)

Source:Movie Zya- Dustin Hoffman & Katharine Ross.

Source:The New Democrat

I saw The Graduate for the fourth, or fifth time Sunday morning. Not exactly keeping count. When I was killing time and waiting to meet a friend that I got together very early with on Sunday. My friend and I had this little minor debate going on whether, or not Anne Bancroft, who I think is the star of this movie, whether she is overrated in this movie. This movie, is Ann Bancroft’s defining role. She is known as Mrs. Robinson and for very good reasons. Because she played a beautiful, sexy, very cute, witty, intelligent, seductress who knew exactly what she wanted and what she didn’t want. And how to get what she wanted and stop what she didn’t want.

My friend and I, off an on, the last couple of weeks, have been discussing whether Anne is overrated physically, or not. I agree with my friend, that she’s not the best looking women of the 1960s, or from her generation lets say. But I haven’t heard anyone suggest that she is. But she was a very cute, beautiful, sexy women and a hell of an actress and her role and how she played it, is critical to this movie. It’s the Dustin Hoffman character, not the actor, but Ben Braddock, who I’m not impressed with. He’s just graduated from college with a college degree. And has no idea what the hell he wants to do with his life. He sort of has the personality of a hit man. Someone who speaks in very short if not one word sentences. Who prefers to be by himself, someone what emotionally distant and doesn’t show much if any emotion.

And that is pretty much what makes The Graduate work. A beautiful sexy cute witty intelligent women, in Mrs. Robinson, who is not happy with her marriage and perhaps life in general. Who uses Ben Braddock, who is lost and doesn’t know where he’s going, to fill whatever void that she has with her husband. Which is physical attraction, attention, sex, the feeling that she’s still beautiful and sexy. Which of course she is, but perhaps her husband, played by Murray Hamilton, has lost something perhaps downstairs and up. But the thing is, the people around Ben, his family actually do care about him and want him to be happy and they along with Mr. Robinson, set up Ben with the Robinson’s daughter. Elaine Robinson, played by the beautiful and adorable Katharine Ross.

That is pretty much how this movie goes. Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben to date her daughter. She wants Ben as his sex partner and doesn’t believe Ben is good enough for his daughter. But the date goes on anyway and Ben at first tries to comply with Mrs. Robinson and intentionally makes the date horrible for Elaine and is distant the whole time and takes her to a strip club even. Great way to lose a date if that is your goal, but discovers that he’s been a real asshole, to be blunt about it. And that he’s really hurt Elaine who didn’t deserve it. And tries to make it up to her and they have a really good date after that.

Again, Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben with her daughter. To the point that she tells her about the actual affair that she had with Ben. And even goes to far and tells Elaine, that Ben raped her. Which of course didn’t happen. And Elaine dumps him and goes away for graduate school and Ben spends the rest of the movie trying to win her back. The first forty-five minutes of this movie, are very good and very funny. Mrs. Robinson, tries to seduce Ben two times and swings and misses. Ben, probably feeling way to guilty to take her up on her very generous offer. The third pitch, is thrown by Ben this time and he offers himself to her and invites her to a hotel. This is a great movie about people who aren’t very happy with themselves. And don’t know where they’re going until they get there.

Radical Films: Let it Burn-Robert F. Williams (1968)

Source:Radical Films-

Source: The New Democrat

It’s good to hear a prominent African-American leader support the Right to Self-Defense. Especially with Robert Williams being on the New-Left, or Far-Left in America and a self-described Communist. And I say that, because if there’s one large population in America that has suffered a lot of violence and abuse against them, it’s the African-American community in America. If there’s one community that deserves that right more than anyone else, it would be this community. And I tend to fall on the side of the Martin King social democratic wing of the civil rights movement. But its easy to see why people who have suffered so much against them, would want and need the Right to Self-Defense.

The civil rights movement in America, was multi-racial and multi-political as far as ideology. You had a pacifist social democratic wing in it. Led by Dr. King and his organization. You had a liberal wing that was always talking about self-empowerment and empowering African-Americans to take control of their lives. That also believed in the Right to Self-Defense, led by Malcolm X. And you had a New-Left wing, Communist even, that believed in Black Power and part of that power was using violence against violence and self-protection and defense. Led by the Black Panther Party and many other groups on the New-Left in America.

It sounds like to me that Rob Williams, became more radical as he left America for Cuba in the 1960s. He was President of the NAACP in North Carolina. The NAACP, is a mainstream center-left organization. That is about racial-equality and other issues. It is not a group of Socialists and Communists by in large. And perhaps Williams got tired of all the violence and racism that he was seeing in America and believed he was being persecuted by the U.S. Government. And decided that he needed to change his politics and needed a different approach to take on racism in America and push for racial-equality.
Source:Radical Films

Sam Seder: The Majority Report: Ayn Rand, Secret Socialist

Source:The Majority Report With Sam Seder- Objectivist Philosopher Ayn Rand on The Phil Donahue Show in 1979.

Source:The New Democrat

Is Ayn Rand a hypocrite, because she collected from Social Security and Medicare, two social programs that she was against? Actually no, because she paid into both of them and just collected out what she was entitled to under law. It would be one thing if somehow she became Queen or dictator of the United States and decided to outlaw both programs, except for herself. Now if that were to happen and the Chicago Cubs were to win the World Series, then you could call Ayn a hypocrite. I’m not a fan of pork barrel projects. But that won’t stop me from using a road that was specifically built for my community. That doesn’t benefit anyone else, that other taxpayers have to pay for.

There’s a wing in the Tea Party movement that if they were in charge during the 1930s and 1960s, Social Security, Medicare and a whole host of social insurance programs wouldn’t have been created if they were in charge. But generally speaking, you don’t see them running to outlaw those programs. Specially since they’ve paid a hell of a lot of taxes to finance those programs. Their parents, are already eligible and collecting from those programs. And one day they’ll be eligible to collect some of the taxes that they’ve paid into those programs. Which made the health care reform debate of six years ago funny. When a lot of these so-called Tea Party activists were screaming, “don’t give me socialized medicine! Oh by the way, get your damn hands off my Medicare.”

If Ayn Rand was a Socialist, then Rick Santorum, who is about as Far-Right as anyone can get at least on social issues, is a Libertarian and Mike Huckabee, similar to Rick, is a Liberal. Ayn Rand, is to Libertarians what Karl Marx is to, well Marxists. What Gordon Thomas is to Democratic Socialists, what Barry Goldwater is to Conservatives, what Jack Kennedy and Tom Jefferson are to Liberals. The heroes and gods to all of these political movements. Just because someone collects from something that they are entitled to, doesn’t make them a hypocrite. It just makes them an American.

President Barack Obama: Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference

Source:You Hot News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) at The White House.

Source:The New Democrat

President Obama, once again nailed it, when he said that without this deal, which is of course is a deal, Iran would get the nuclear weapons that they want anyway. There are four choices here and only one of them are good. You do nothing else other than current economic sanctions that are crushing the Iranian economy, but not stopping them from pursuing nuclear weapons. You try to take the Iranian nuclear weapons program out from the air with air strikes. Even though they have nuclear power plants underground. You invade the country, go to war with them and if you’re successful there, then you try to take the weapons out that way. Or you prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons peacefully. Which is what dealmaking and compromise is about.

Compromises and deals, by definition are imperfect. You get something you want, or need by giving up something you don’t need, or value as much. With this deal, we can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange if Iran complies with the deal, they get economic and sanctions relief that will benefit their economy and their people. Which would make the Iranian Government look better with the Iranian people, but also makes America look better with the Iranian people as well. Who doesn’t like their government, but aren’t fans of the U.S. Government either.

What would the opponents of this deal and President Obama do instead? Invade Iran, a country the size of Saudi Arabia physically, but with seventy-five-million people? Even though they wouldn’t support any resolution that would empower President Obama to take America to war with Iran. Again with the air strikes, Congress wouldn’t support that most likely . And the Iranian Government has nuclear power plants underground. Continue to negotiate for a better deal? What would a better deal be? Iran, is going to have to get something substantial out of any deal, or they aren’t going to sign on to it. President Obama, got the best available deal here that could actually work. And deserves a lot of credit for it.