The New Democrat Online

Friday, February 5, 2016

See Progress: The History of Progressivism

In this piece I'm going to layout what progressivism is and what it isn't and also why I believe Hillary Clinton is the Progressive Democrat running for president and why Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Socialist, whose running for president as a Democrat as well. When you think of Progressive, you should think progress and someone who believes in progress. Moving the ball forward, making things better and yes using government and giving government a role in creating that progress.

But not the only role and you're not taxing people so high that they no longer have to take responsibility over their own lives. Like when it comes to health care, health insurance, education, childcare, pension, housing, whether to join a union or not, or personal freedom choices. Like what to eat and drink, how to spend your money, how we communicate to people and what we say in public. Progressives, helped write the U.S. Constitution and created the American Federal Republic. They didn't oppose it. The Progressive Era of the early 20th Century was about creating a public safety net for the United States, to go along with everything that we already had as a country. Not to completely remake America into some social democracy, or some socialist state.

Socialists, meaning Democratic Socialists and Progressives aren't the same people with two different labels. Lyndon Johnson and Bernie Sanders, aren't the same political animals. Senator Sanders, is much further left than President Johnson ever was. Especially on economic policy, but national security as well. Not to say that Senator Sanders doesn't believe in national defense and wouldn't defend the homeland, but President Johnson was a strong anti-Communist and Cold Warrior. And would never call for the deep budget cuts in defense that Bernie favors. Progressives, created the National Security State. Progressives, created the tools like the United Nations, NATO, Department of Defense, CIA and other agencies, that helped win the Cold War. Socialists, have opposed these things from the start.

The political core of a Progressive is someone who believes that everyone in society should have a quality opportunity to succeed as best as they can. That economic success and freedom shouldn't be tied to the income level of one's parents, but to the individual's work, education and what they're able to create for themselves based on what they invest in society themselves. So Progressives, believe in public education, public infrastructure, a public safety net for people who truly need it. Freedom to Assembly, Right to Organize and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as a whole. But Socialists would go much further than that and want a society where the individual isn't so responsible for their own lives. And where the central government assumes a lot of that responsibility. So no one has too much, or too little, in their view.  

Again Progressives, aren't Democratic Socialists and Progressives believe in things like personal responsibility and a strong national defense. That America can't police the world by ourselves, but that we have to play our part. Socialists, tend to be more isolationist and dovish, soft on defense would be a way of putting that. Scandinavia and Canada, are good examples of that. Whereas America, Germany, France, tend to believe in internationalism and working with their allies and even using military force when they believe it can make a positive difference. France, is a big part of the coalition against ISIS right now in Syria and bombing ISIS right now and Germany is also part of that coalition. So the Progressive, doesn't blame society when people do horrible things. They hold person who committed the horrible acts responsible. The Socialist, might say that society is to blame here and give the criminal a pass.

The reason why Hillary Clinton is the Progressive running for president, because she believes in both progress. But also governing and when it comes to our government with checks and balances and separation of powers and divided government, she knows that you can't always have everything your way and that most times you won't. That you have to work with the other party to move the ball forward and make things better. To accomplish progressives goals and live up to your progressive values. Progressives are realists and govern from realism. The Socialist would probably say that moving the ball forward is not good enough. If people still live in poverty, don't have health insurance, are unemployed, aren't getting a good education, etc. And the reasons for this is that government is big enough and doesn't have enough responsibility in these areas. Which is where Bernie Sanders tends to operate from. He being an idealistic Socialist against the Pragmatic Progressive in Hillary Clinton.

Fusion: Daniel Rivero- An O.J. Simpson Trial Refresher For 90s Kids: A Look Back at The Trial of The 20th Century

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review on WordPress: Fusion: Daniel Rivero- An O.J. Simpson Trial Refresher For 90s Kids: A Look Back at The Trial of The 20th Century

Just to give you a little background of myself, I was eighteen in June, 1994 and about a week out of high school after graduation vacationing with my parents in Delaware. So I guess technically I didn’t count as a kid then, because I was one of the youngest adults from Generation X. Actually, more than twenty-years later I still am. Which makes me feel a little younger now than I’m in my forties. My point being that I remember this case very well, because again as a young adult and having my first real job out of high school and actually interested in the 1994 NBA Finals that was interrupted by this bizarre case.

The O.J. Simpson case represents everything that is wrong with celebrity culture, celebrity news and the country’s obsession with it. We have Americans literally who can’t go to bed until every single text message that they have is responded to and call is returned. Or have checked every single celebrity news story online generally on their phone and have watched all of their so-called reality TV shows. The O.J. Simpson, was the start of the reality TV and celebrity news watch in this country. Where you would have networks dedicated to this, well stuff. (To keep it clean) NBC, breaks into NBC Sports that was covering the NBA Finals in 1994. Arguably the biggest event in sports that year. With NBC News, not to cover even a plane crash, or some terrorist explosion, but a car chase that happened to have a celebrity in it that was suspected of murder. We didn’t have that type of national coverage before 1994.

We had a twenty-four cable news network that dedicated all of their coverage each day during this trial not to coverage of the 1994 mid-term elections that saw House Republicans win the majority for the first time since 1952, or how would Democratic President Bill Clinton work with this new Republican Congress that controlled the House and Senate, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or what was going on in the Balkans with Europe and America, about to get involved there, but again this bizarre celebrity crime trial. That looked more like a Hollywood crime movie than a real-life murder trial. Pre-1994, CNN actually stood for Cable News Network. Before it was changed to the Celebrity News Network. (Ha, ha)

Of course we’ve always had celebrity news and celebrity news coverage and even tabloid news and I’m a big movie fan myself especially classic movies and like bios of my entertainers. But pre-1994 average Americans had lives outside of their celebrity news world and reality TV. They wouldn’t run to the nearest TV and to find out how juries ruled on cases, or skip work to follow murder cases. The O.J. Simpson case, must have been a boom for the brand new internet, that had only been around for a couple of years at this point and started becoming big and more universal in 1994 and the same with cell phones. All because one of the most famous sports/movie celebrities was on trial for murder.

And by the way we’re talking about a very interesting case here and I’m not denying that and denying that it should have been covered. But that is what Court-TV was for and what E is for and perhaps A&E and other entertainment networks. My point is that when you have hard news organizations like CNN and NBC News, dedicating all of their coverage essentially, or at least marathon sessions of it, you’re saying that important news is not real news is not as important, because it doesn’t help the bottom line as much, or that Americans are pretty stupid and have nothing better to do with their lives. Which is too many cases is very true. That news organizations are not so much reporting important hard news, but reporting on things that drives their ratings.

The O.J. Simpson trial, was a gift to Hollywood. They couldn’t have come up with a better soap opera or mini series on their best marijuana high, than what they got from O.J. Simpson, his star power, the people he was involved with and of course how he butchered two innocent people in the prime of their lives and then got away with it. At least in the short-term. Life has been hell for him as it should almost every moment since. But that is what you entertainment networks for to cover these stories. That is what cable TV, but not cable news is for. To cover cases that Americans who have too much time on their hands and not enough going on in their lives, who have the time to follow these stores will watch. And leave hard news organizations for covering real news.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

GataBella: Ava Gardner's Private Moments

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: GataBella: Ava Gardner's Private Moments

I think what I love and respect most about Ava Gardner is not her beauty, (not many prettier) not her adorableness, (not many women cuter) not her sex appeal even though she was this gorgeous baby-faced brunette with a sweet body and great personality and sense of humor. What I love about her the most was her realness. The women you saw on stage and in her movies is the women you saw off camera. The people who worked for her and gave her roles knew her so well and set her up so beautifully.

It was like she was never acting in her movies, because she was so natural in the roles that she played. She always said that the only thing that she wanted was to be happy. Those are the characters that she played. She had the reputation of a somewhat immature wild child who went too far and had too much fun and then would pout when she wasn't happy. You see her first seen in the movie Earthquake that she did with Charlton Heston and they have an argument and she's in early fifties at this point and still very beautiful and adorable and she runs to the bathroom almost like a little girl and takes a lot of pills. Heston, her husband in the movie finds her and saves her.

She was always playing a bit of a wild child who loved to have a great time and took it too far. Because as she would tell you life to her was about being alive and living and not just being around. And enjoying life and being happy as much as you can. She died at 68, but she lived her life her way (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) and was Ava Gardner her entire life. This gorgeous baby-faced adorable brunette with the personality and sense of humor to match. And I believe this is all part of why she's so likable then and still so popular now. Because she was this goddess who was so sweet, charming and funny, but so real and you always knew who she was and what she wanted. Not a lot of mystery with Ava Gardner.

Notes On Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism and Sovereignty

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress: Notes On Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism and Sovereignty

Here’s another interesting piece and discussion from Notes on Liberty. And something The New Democrat debates all the time in the Classical Liberalism group on Google Plus. If you’re on Google Plus which we are and are interested in classical liberalism, I suggest you check that group out. Just look for the photo of the great Classical Liberal Milton Friedman.

Because when you’re talking about liberalism, what are you talking about exactly. Are actually talking about liberalism, or are you talking about libertarianism, or socialism, or Marxism. Because these are all different philosophies. Or are you talking about socialist liberalism, which combines social liberalism with a heavy belief in personal freedom. But with economic socialism and a huge welfare state that is financed through heavy taxation.

I and this blog fall into the Social Liberal camp. A heavy belief in both personal and economic autonomy, but with a limited government there to not only protect our individual rights and freedom, but to help people in need help themselves so they can to also live in freedom. So we separate from the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist, or Socialist Liberal camp, but also separate from the Ron Paul Libertarian camp. Where government is there just to protect the borders, defend the homeland and prosecute criminals when they hurt innocent people.

Social Liberals, share things in common with Libertarians. Because both factions believe in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but also holding people personally accountable for their own decisions. And we both believe in a lot of economic freedom. With low taxation to encourage economic investment and success. But we apply the don’t treat on me belief to both social and economic policy. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone from either a personal and economic standpoint, your business is just that. Social Liberals believe in a regulatory state not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers. And that is where we separate from Libertarians.

And I could get into people who are called Modern Progressives, who believe in both the welfare state and the nanny state, but now also have a speech state. That says government should decide what speech is appropriate and what isn’t. The so-called political correctness warriors. So-called Progressives that believe its the job of government not to expand freedom, but to be the national parents of the country and even protect us from ourselves. But this philosophy has nothing to do with liberalism and looks more like Neo-Communism, or Marxism, with a capitalist economic system and political freedom. When you’re talking about individual freedom it really gets to social liberalism, libertarianism, what is called conservative libertarianism and to a certain extent even socialist liberalism.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Bernardo Santos Carmo: Judy Garland With Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin in 1962

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Bernardo Santos Carmo: Judy Garland With Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin in 1962

You're going to have a harder time finding three better singers and really performers when you're talking about Judy, Frank and Dean, performing together on the same show, than Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra and Judy Garland. That is how big Judy Garland was and the amount of star power that she had that she could bring in those two great performers. The two top stars in the Rat Pack that she was friends with and worked with. And I emphasize performers, because Judy, Frank and Dean, weren't more than singers. They were all great singers as well, but they were entertainers. Dean Martin, an accomplished singer, actor and comedian. Frank Sinatra, the Chairman of the Board, The Voice, perhaps the singer of all-time. As well as an accomplished actor and someone with the comedic wit and timing of a great comedian. Judy Garland, accomplished singer and actress, who also had a great comedic wit and timing. You put these three together and also throw in that they're friends and you have a great show.

Gil Troy: Moynihan's Moment- Daniel P. Moynihan's Fight Against Zionism is Racism

I've never understood the New-Left's hatred of Israel and perhaps the Jewish community in America in general. Socialists are supposed to be for the underdog and looking after their well-being and even using government to do that. Who is the biggest underdog at least in the Middle East if not the world? It would be Jews of course. An ethnic group that has at most ten-million members in and outside of Israel in the Mideast, in a region of three-hundred and fifty-million people, give or take. Israel, is literally surrounded by enemies once you get past Western Europe and into the Mideast.

And other than Egypt and Jordan they all hate Israel and would like to see the Jewish State be destroyed. Yet according to the Far-Left Marxist dictators are really cool and simply misunderstood hipsters who deserve our compassion. Even if they've murdered millions of people.  And according to the New-Left and Libertarian-Right, the Jews represent the real evil in the world. Even though they've been murdered by Marxists. And gays, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities in these Slavic countries have been murdered by Marxists regimes as well.

When the New-Left in America and the Libertarian-Right, go against Jewish-Americans and Israel, they're on the same team as Marxists, Baathists, Islamists and other authoritarians in the world. Who hate Jews, because they're Jewish and believe that Jews aren't entitled to their own homeland, if not lives in the world. They're in the same camp as the German Nazis who murdered millions of Jews in World War II and German Nazis who've murdered Jews and African-Americans in America. And the same thing as the KKK.

That is who the New-Left and Libertarian-Right are in bed with when it comes to their hatred towards Jews and Israel. If you want to support underdogs, sure! Palestine is a good place to start, because they're outnumbered, out-gunned and out-classed by the Israelis. And Palestinians by in large are good people. But how about Israel which is a developed country and democracy that is surrounded by people who hate them. That is what the Jews have faced in Europe, America and even their homeland in Israel and yet they're still her and doing well against horrible odds.

That is what Pat Moynihan stood up against at the United Nations. And organization that in the 1970s was in the third world Marxist dictator camp. Who saw Jews as the real racists in the world and stood up for every Far-Left rebellion that was trying to overthrow liberal democratic government's and establish their Marxism in their country. Instead of standing up for real freedom fighters who were actually fighting for their own freedom along with their own survival. The Jewish State of Israel, has been in a seventy-year struggle for their own survival. Against hundreds of millions of Arabs who hate them and don't believe they have a right to even exist.

If you want to fight for underdogs, how about first fighting for underdogs! I know, crazy concept, but if you say you're in favor of something you can at least understand what that is and what that means and then stand by it. But also fight for the good underdogs. People who fight for freedom and against racism. Not people who fight for Islamism, Marxism, or any other authoritarian philosophy. Whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. Stand up for freedom fighters who fight for freedom and stand for equality and equal rights. Not fascists who want to force their own warped ideology on an entire country.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

The New York Times: Room For Debate: Andrew P. Kelly- The Problem Is That Free College Isn't Free

The New York Times: Room For Debate: Andrew P. Kelly- The Problem Is That Free College Isn't Free

I believe the main problem with many of these political debates has to do with language and how things are described. Whether it’s called free health care, free health insurance, free education, free college, free anything else that could be viewed as a positive thing that people should at least want to have. When the fact is none of these things are free for everyone if they’re provided by government. Because who funds government? Of course the taxpayers and anyone who pays taxes. You even now have Democratic Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saying tuition-free college when he talks about his college plan. Because he knows he’ll have to have new taxes in order to pay for his so-called free college plan.

Just replace the word free with affordable and apply affordable to every new service that you want government to provide for people and now you’ll be telling the truth when speaking to voters. Instead of giving voters impressions that you would be giving them all of this free government stuff, you’ll be treating them like adults and taxpayers. You tell them that you have a better deal for them with deal being the key word, because better of course would be debatable, because it would depend on the plan. And then tell them how you would pay for whatever you want to provide for them. Democratic Socialists like Bernie, Jill Stein and whoever else, would earn credibility with Joe and Jane Average taxpayer who are already paying a lot in taxes who know the government services that they’re currently receiving aren’t free.

So of course Bernie Sanders so-called tuition-free college funding plan, sure as hell won’t be free. At least not for anyone who pays taxes including payroll taxes. Bernie will say he’ll tax corporations and rich people to pay for his plan. But then those business’s will raise the costs of their customers, because they don’t want to see their cost of business to go up. Rich individuals will take their business and investments somewhere else where taxes aren’t as high. And Bernie might come back with passing some new law that outlaws business’s from raising their prices to cover their tuition-free college costs. But again those business’s will just take their business somewhere else where their cost of business isn’t as high. Every service anywhere that comes with a cost in creating that service also comes with a cost in providing that service to their customers. Why would government be any different?