Slate Magazine: Chris Kirk- Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice Cabinet Generator

Source:The Daily Review

This is exactly why I don’t see Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as nothing more than his latest reality show. That will become a movie titled something to the effect “Who Wants Donald Trump For President?’ Available at your local independent movie theater (if it doesn’t go straight to Netflix or DVD) by the spring or summer of 2017. Donald Trump’s campaign theme should be called, “When Reality TV meets the Real World.” And perhaps that could also be his alternative movie tittle for his next reality show or movie. If you just look at his supposed campaign spokespeople on cable news/cable talk, these are not professional politicos or politicians. Other than Jeff Lord at CNN. They’re business people and Hollywood and New York celebs who’ve worked for the Trump Organization. Which is his business.

The Republican Party is so screwed up right now that their inmates are running their prison. Or their kids are running their household with their prison staff or parents powerless to take back the prison or house. Until their inmates or kids meet their demands. The Far-Right of the GOP, is tired of their leadership trying to govern with the Democrats and trying to reach out to new voters who don’t look and think like them. Whatever you think of The Donald he’s a very successful businessman. And just because he’s stupid about government, policy and anything that involves the President of the United States and is less qualified to be President than Sarah Palin and a current president of a college student body, he knows a great business venture when he sees one.

Thanks to The Donald and the Republican Party, we now have a national network reality show that is shown by all of our news networks and broadcast networks, instead of just NBC. And celebrity culture and celebrity news have taken over our politics and current affairs. If you think Congress sucks and is an embarrassment, you haven’t followed the Trump Campaign very closely. Maybe you’ve been vacationing in Mongolia or did something so horrible that you were given a long-term sentence there and you’ve just been released. But Congress, other than Senator Jeff Sessions who just endorses The Donald, looks very responsible and competent compared with the Trump Campaign. That is run by New York and Hollywood insiders who think American politics is so boring that they have to make it look like reality TV in order to get people to vote. And what America gets in return is an international embarrassment compared with the rest of the developed world.

Slate Magazine: Karina Longworth: The Hollywood Ten Paid The Price For Refusing to Answer The $64 Question

Source:The Daily Review

I blog about political correctness and what I at least see as fascism on a regular basis. Perhaps one piece a week, because its such an important issue today with free speech coming under assault practically everywhere in America and even on college campus’ where free speech needs to be at it’s strongest so young people can learn and share views with each other and get as good of an education as possible. But just like Caucasian-Americans don’t own a monopoly on racism and other forms of bigotry in America, the Far-Left doesn’t own a monopoly on political correctness and fascism. Back in the late 1940s and really through the 1950s Americans were under attack from the Far-Right in this country for simply believing what they believed and who they associated with.

It started in Congress in 1947 with the House of Representatives starting an investigation with their so-called Un-American Activities Committee doing an investigation about Communists in Hollywood. And sure there were Socialists in Hollywood and perhaps even Communists. But so what. They were also Americans who went to work everyday producing films and other entertainment that had nothing to do with the Cold War and certainly were not on the side of Russia and other Communists states back then. At least in the sense of propping them up and trying to make them look better than they actually were. They were Hollywood employees. Actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, who simply went to work everyday producing a lot of good films that people wanted to see and paid a lot of money to see. Who ideologically were Socialists who backed Far-Left candidates and causes in America.

The Far-Right and right-wing version of political correctness which is a form of fascism is that people who don’t share their view of the world and what America should be and be about and don’t agree with them ideologically, are somehow Un-American. And not deserving of the same constitutional rights as other Americans. Meaning the right-wing and especially Neoconservative fascists on the Far-Right who see Senator Joe McCarthy as a hero and even speak highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin today for his crackdowns on opposition media in Russia and homosexuality in Russia. And are now backing Donald Trump for president. People like Far-Right columnist and author Ann Coulter. Who is the real-life Donald Trump who actually believes what The Donald says. Even if Trump doesn’t believe his own propaganda.

In 1947 you had the House call members of the so-called Hollywood Ten to testify in front of the Un-American Activities Committee and asked what would normally be seen as an innocent question. “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” The problem is they were asked to do this under oath and on live national TV. When broadcast news was still an infant. With the whole world (at least in America especially in Hollywood) listening. With Hollywood executives and studio heads being anti-Communist and not able to afford to be associated with Communists or anyone else on the Far-Left in America. With these Hollywood employees having a choice to either plead the fifth and look very suspicious, or admit to being Socialists and risk not being able to work again ever in Hollywood. Even though most of them had kids to take care of and needed to work and earn a living.

The Hollywood Ten weren’t asked if they had committed any crimes or even knew any criminals. Or even associated with organize criminals and mobsters. They were put on trial for their political beliefs. They were considered guilty by association and communist political beliefs. Without any trial even though every American is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free speech and the constitutional right to believe whatever they want to. Whatever you think of political correctness on many of our college campus’ right now that is done by private individuals. People getting together in trying to eliminate and censor ideas that they not only disagree with, but find offensive. What happened to the Hollywood Ten back in the 1940s and 1950s was a form of state-fascism. American citizens put on trial simply for their political views.

Slate: Issac Chotiner- 'Nightmare Scenarios for the Supreme Court'

Source:Slate Magazine- "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the U.S. Capitol, Dec. 15, 2015 in Washington, D.C." From Slate Magazine.

"In light of the coming battle in the Senate over Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, I called Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an expert on the workings of Congress, and the co-author of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism.

We discussed the future of the Supreme Court, the different types of obstructionism practiced by Republicans and Democrats, and the nightmare scenarios (another court packing!) that could be in our future. The conversation has been edited and condensed.

Isaac Chotiner: Is the Republican demand that the next president, rather than Obama, appoint a replacement for Scalia really that different from other forms of obstruction we have seen from both parties?" 

From Slate Magazine 

"President Obama responds to Senate Republicans' claims that there will be no confirmation hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. CNN's Michelle Kosinski reports."  

Source:CNN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States

From CNN

I would love to say I’m even surprised to see Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Chairman Chuck Grassley and their flat-out obstructionism when to comes to filling Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I’m not, not even mildly so. I would be lying to the point that I was claiming I was Jesus, Moses and Karl Marx, all in the same person if I said I was surprised by the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism when it comes to President Obama’s appointments or when it comes to policy. I mean, it started in the early days of 111th Congress when Barack Obama just became President and then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a speech at I believe the Heritage Foundation and said his number one priority was to see that Barack Obama was a one term President.

But having said that lets get to the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism and again in the Senate where it started in 2009. And now it looks like the Republican Party is on a duel suicide trip with Donald Trump as their presumed presidential nominee and the Senate Republicans going into the spring and summer in a very hot and humid Washington (assuming this is a normal year) saying no to any Supreme Court nominee in 2016. Even if that person is one of their current colleagues in the Senate, or in their party like with Governor Brian Sandoval, who is a popular moderate Governor of Nevada. Who looks like a Bernie Sanders Far-Lefty compared with the Tea Party and the Far-Right in the GOP right now. But hardly any Liberal let alone a Bernie Sanders Socialist. Because the Senate GOP says that the President is a lame duck even though he has eleven months left on his current term.

I remember the 2012 presidential election. I voted and remember President Obama getting reelected overwhelmingly by five-million votes in the popular vote and roughly 320 votes in the Electoral College. I also remember my social studies classes in high school and remembering that the President of the United States serves four-year terms and no more than two. So this idea the President is a lame duck when he still has a year left on his second term just doesn’t hold. 

Imagine a baseball player singing a four-year contract and going into the spring training of his fourth year with his team and he says: "You know what, three years is enough. I’m not going to resign with you next year anyway. I’m just going to take the fourth year off. And oh by the way you have to pay me, because I signed a four-year contract." Even though the player is healthy. How would the general manager of the club react? He would probably tell the player: "You better show up and play, or you’re not going to get paid."

And as far as presidential Supreme Court appointments not getting voted on in an election year: Anthony Kennedy now Justice Kennedy was approved in 1988 by a Democratic Senate with a solid vote. Democratic Justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Republican Clarence Thomas in 1991. They were as far apart ideologically and had as little in common politically as country music fans have with hip-hop fans. And yet the Democratic Senate approved the Thomas appointment to replace Justice Marshall with a handful of Democratic Senators voting for Thomas. Which is what President Bush and the Senate Republican Leadership had to have to get Clarence Thomas through. There is no precedent for Senate Republican to sit on their asses for a year and not act on President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment. Which should be available by the early spring.

On a lighter note: imagine what the Republican Party in Washington looks like in lets say June and July. Donald Trump is their overwhelming nominee for president: the Joe McCarthy/Pat Buchanan of the Baby Boom Generation. A man claiming that Muslins don’t legally get Freedom of Religion protections and Mosques are not houses of worship. Who says he can deport eleven-million Latinos with the stroke of a pen. Who says Mexico will pay for the wall on the American-Mexican border. That women are property and that Americans don’t have right to speak out against him and I could go on, but it could get worst. And I don’t want to get stuck with someone future mental health bills, because they became depressed after reading this about The Donald. But it just gets worst, because now the GOP has The Donald and a Republican Senate sitting on their asses over a more than qualified Supreme Court nominee who got 90 plus votes to serve on the lower court.

If you’re familiar with Washington in the summer you know that it’s a hot humid place. Where we only get rain generally in between heat waves and our summers tend to start in May and go through September and sometimes even October. But with all the hot air that we simply get from Mother Nature, is a warm day at the North Pole compared with all the heat and humidity that comes from Congress alone. Especially in the Senate with the cloture rule where Senators at any time can speak until they have to go to the bathroom or fall asleep standing up. 

It’s going to be a hellish summer for the GOP and bad enough if all they have is an anti-civil liberties, anti-free speech, anti-immigrant and anti-Latino and Muslim fascist as their presidential nominee. How they deal with that plus with their twenty-four Senate seats that are up for reelection with perhaps as many as half of them in play and half of those favored to go to the Democrats. And they have to run with The Donald and try to defend in Democratic and swing states their leadership’s obstructionism over a clearly qualified Supreme Court nominee to their constituents. This will be a year to remember and forget for the GOP. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Slate Magazine: Josh Voorhees: It's Official: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump

Source:The Daily Review

I think the only thing that could make the Sarah Palin endorsement of Donald Trump any better is for The Donald, if he goes on to win the GOP nomination for president to nominate Governor Palin as his vice presidential nominee. They wouldn't bother having to raise any more money themselves at that point, because they could go on Saturday Night Live every week and play themselves. And give the comedians who normally play The Donald and The Hockey Mom, a few months much deserved vacation. Perhaps Tina Fey and the guy who plays The Donald, could come in and do post-Donald-Hockey Mom commentary about their performance on SNL. Now can The Donald get Michele Bachmann out of the mental hospital long enough, or prison, to endorse him for president as well?

I know Sarah Palin is no genius and by the way Alaska is not a good place for sunbathing in January either. For anyone who loves obvious comments and if you do please seek help, or don't talk to me. But Sarah is endorsing a man who kept Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation in business in the 2000s. Who at least in the past has been very pro-choice and not just on abortion, but gambling, medical marijuana and I'm sure a whole bunch of other social issues. Who once supported single payer health insurance reform. Who said in the summer of 2004 that the American economy does better under Democrats. Back when The Donald actually spoke the truth from time to time. And this is the guy whose supposed to lead the next conservative revolution.

Is The Donald a grassroots Conservative, or is he a Democratic Socialist who would probably make a good running mate for Bernie Sanders. With The Donald making the case that American business's would do well under socialism, because The Donald is a Socialist and a very wealthy businessman. By the way, is Sarah Palin a grassroots Conservative, or a political satirist who knows less about politics and current affairs than Hawaiians know about ice fishing in Nova Scotia. Who is less qualified to run any government than your average mailman is to give you a much need lifesaving heart transplant. If I'm Ted Cruz right now, I'm actually happy about this. Because now Donald Trump and his marijuana high supporters can't say that Ted is the brain-dead nut in the race. Because Sarah Palin didn't endorse him.

Slate: William Saletan: Is Polygamy Next After Gay Marriage?

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I don’t think there’s a good case against polygamy. At least one that I’ve seen that would say, “you know what, polygamy is a bad thing. To the point that it should be illegal.” And what I would say against polygamy, is that if you want to redefine marriage in America, even in a consenting polygamist relationship, legalize polygamy and call it marriage. Gay marriage, doesn’t redefine marriage. Up until the last ten years, or so marriage has always been between a man and a women, but there wasn’t any official definition of marriage. Other than it always involved two consenting adults who agreed to marry each other. Legalize polygamy, would certainly change that.

As a Liberal myself, if three people lets say want to be involved in a polygamist relationship and they all know about that, that’s their business. And why should big government be able to interfere with that. But just don’t call it marriage, because we’re not talking about two parties involved, but at least three. To give you a hypothetical, if Joe Jones, wants to marry Mary Smith and Sally Wilson at the same time, or he’s already married to Mary and wants to stay married to Mary, but wants to marry Sally and Sally wants to marry Joe and Sally knows that Joe is already married to Mary and doesn’t have a problem with that and Mary doesn’t mind Joe being married to Sally, as well and perhaps is even attracted to Sally, then that’s their business. Not big government’s. It’s not the job of government to run people’s lives for them.

I would never be involved in a polygamist relationship, at least one that I know about. But there a lot of things that I don’t personally approve of, including homosexuality as a straight man. But just because I don’t personally approve of something that doesn’t affect me and has nothing to do with my life and how I live, why should I or government be able to tell others that you can’t live differently, because we don’t approve. Gay marriage, doesn’t redefine marriage, at least not officially, but polygamy would. So legalize polygamy, sure, as long as all parties involved approve and are aware of the extra relationship, or relationships involved. But just don’t call it marriage, because its polygamy. Which is different.

Slate Magazine: Josh Voorhees: Lincoln Chafee Campaign Plan: Attack Hillary Clinton on Her 2002 Iraq War Vote

Source:The New Democrat

Then Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Iraq War vote, is just one example of why the Democratic frontrunner for president is not a lock, or slam dunk to win the Democratic nomination. That vote of hers back then when Congress was debating whether or not to give President Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq, is just one example of why she didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2008. And seven years later that vote looks even worst. We’re still there, Iraq is still not able to defend and take care of themselves. ISIS, which was always there, but under different names, now occupies parts of Iraq.

Commander-in-Chief, is the number one responsibility and job of the President of the United States. The President, never gets a break from that and their judgement when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues is always tested. And when you’re on the record as being wrong about perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder, perhaps since Vietnam, that is going to hurt you. Because it goes to your judgement and goes to your judgement and knowledge about the biggest role that a President, or presidential candidate will ever have. Your judgement and knowledge when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief as President of the United States.

Lincoln Chaffee, has his own issues running for President as a Democrat himself. Being a former Republican, is just one example of that. But he can say when Congress debated and voted on the 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq, he voted the right way. Which was no, as a Senator and he can also say that he was the only Senate Republican to vote no on the Iraq War. Instead of being in a position where he was for the Iraq War when he was a Republican. And now that he’s a Democrat, he’s against it.

We’ll never know the answer to this obviously, but had then Senator Clinton showed some real leadership back in 2002 and said, “we’re simply not ready to go to war in Iraq and we need further study. And Congress needs further information before it makes this decision.” And decided to vote no and had taken Barack Obama seriously in 2007 and bothered to of campaign in Iowa, instead of assuming she would automatically win it, she probably not only wins the Democratic nomination for president, but gets elected president in 2008 as well. But what you do with the ball when it is in your court is the test of leadership in politics and government. How you make the calls and what you decide to do. And when of her Iraq War vote, she didn’t make a very good decision. And it could come back to hurt her again.

Slate Magazine: Alec MacGillis: Martin O'Malley Could Challenge Hillary Clinton

Source:The New Democrat

To be completely honest and truthful, the reason why Martin O’Malley had a good week this week, is because Hillary Clinton had a bad one. She’s actually now had two bad weeks over her alleged email scandal that she still doesn’t seem to be able to adequately explain. And I’ve been blogging for two years now that Secretary Clinton has to have not just a strong Democratic challenger in 2016, but a strong center-left Democratic challenger before the general election again whoever the Republican challenger will be. Not just because of her past and all the things that she seems to want to keep from the public including about her own job as Secretary of State, but the fact her only potential message as a presidential candidate, seems to be “vote for the first female President of the United States.”

If Hillary Clinton survives the email scandal, which I believe she will since there doesn’t seem to be anything illegal on her part that was done and gets through the next 5-7 months without an additional scandal, then the focus will be on her presidential campaign and how she would run for president. What would her message be besides the first female President of the United States, her resume that includes Secretary of State where she had a fairly successful term and being a U.S. Senator for eight years. And oh by the way, her last name is Clinton and you know who her husband is and that as Democrats we all like if not love Bill, so Democrats should like her too.

I think the presidential campaign that Hillary wants to run other than the things that I already mentioned, is a very safe campaign where she doesn’t take any hard positions on any controversial issues. And she basically just runs on judgement and leadership and this is what the country needs. Without laying out any strong positions and programs about what would come with her presidency under her leadership and judgment. She seems to want to run for the center and independents before she actually enters the Democratic Caucus in Iowa that is in December. Which opens the door for a strong center-left Liberal Democrat like Martin O’Malley who has a strong liberal record as both Mayor of Baltimore and being a big part of that big city’s turnaround. Both economic and with crime and law enforcement. And as Governor of Maryland where Maryland public schools are the best in the country.

If the Democratic choice is between a mushy-middle of the road Moderate, who doesn’t want to take any strong positions on anything controversial, with no real agenda and vision, versus a McGoevrnite who’ll call them self a Progressive, but is really a hard if not Far-Left Social Democrat like Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress, or Senator Elizabeth Warren, who everyday sounds more like Senator Sanders as far as how she puts down American corporations and wealthy people, as if being wealthy and successful is a bad thing, then it will be 1972 and Democrats will lose. If the GOP does something smart and nominates Jeb Bush. Because Americans will say, “we don’t know where Hillary stands on anything. And the alternative to her is so Far-Left, that we can’t afford everything that they want government to do for us.”

But that is where an opening for someone like a center-left Liberal like Martin O’Malley can come in. He has a record of results and can say, “we can empower more Americans to be successful on their own with opportunity and freedom agenda. Through things like education and infrastructure, being smart on crime and not just tough. I know these policies work, because this is what we did in Baltimore and Maryland.”

Governor O’Malley looks strong because his record looks strong. And Republicans will be able to say that taxes are fairly high in Maryland. But the Governor will be able to say, so is opportunity and economic development. Because people want to invest and live here, including Baltimore which is going through an economic turnaround with all the new technology companies that are doing business there. And with a new casino as well. Because of Maryland’s infrastructure and workforce.

Then Governor George W. Bush in 2000 when he was running for President, liked to call himself a “reformer with results.” In response to the reform-minded Senator John McCain who gave him a strong challenge in the Republican primaries. Martin O’Malley could call himself a Liberal with results. Leading one of the best and wealthiest states in the union for eight years. And can point to real success’. Like legalizing same-sex-marriage, legalizing gambling, decriminalizing marijuana, outlawing the death penalty, new infrastructure investment, the best public schools in the country, great universities and a high quality of life. All of these things that would go unnoticed had Hillary Clinton figured out how to be a Democratic presidential frontrunner by now.

The drawbacks for Governor O’Malley, have to do with the facts that he didn’t go out on top as Governor of Maryland. His approval rating started tanking, the economy started dragging when the rest of the country overall is starting to boom economically. He left the current Governor of Maryland with a sizable budget deficit. His handpicked successor, his Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown lost in a big upset to a Conservative businessman in Larry Hogan. And a lot of these things can be traced to the fact that Governor O’Malley started campaigning for president too soon, when he still had a lot of work to do as Governor. But up to that point of the last I guess year of the O’Malley Administration, he has a proven record as a center-left Liberal Democrat who knows how to govern and get good results. And when the country is looking for someone outside of Washington, he could fit that bill for the Democratic Party.

Slate Magazine: Beth Ethier: Senate Leader Mitch McConnell Promotes Industrial Hemp

Source:The New Democrat

This might be the only bipartisan bill short of a federal budget and the appropriations bills that Congress may pass this year. At least in the Senate where I think Leader Mitch McConnell will have Democratic support including from Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Pat Leahy the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and the two Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. To give Leader McConnell credit, he supported at least limited marijuana legalization in the last Congress. Saying that the states should have the ability to legalize marijuana if they chose too.

But this bill that Leader McConnell will be pushing in this Congress starting in the Senate is about Kentucky. His farmers want it to go along with tobacco and perhaps move away from tobacco. What is good for Kentucky farmers I guess is good for the rest of the country according to Mitch. There is also a bipartisan coalition of Representatives in the House that will try to push a similar bill. Good luck getting Speaker John Boehner who apparently only listens to his hard right now and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to agree to even bringing the bill through committee and later the House floor.

But this bill is an excellent first step to finally ending marijuana prohibition that should’ve been ended with alcohol prohibition in the 1930s. And when that step is taken then America can take big steps to finally ending the failed War on Drugs. By treating drug addicts and users for what they are that is people who need help and get them treatment in rehab. And stop treating them like criminals. While you continue to punish drug dealers who pray on drug addicts who can’t control themselves. And end up ruining their own lives that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

Slate Magazine: Jamelle Bouie: 'John Fund's Distorted History of the Democratic Party'

Source:Slate Magazine- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) 36th President of the United States (1963-69)

"Writing at National Review, conservative journalist John Fund promises to “set the record straight on Jim Crow.” And what does he offer? A column’s worth of warmed-over partisan pablum that begins and ends with the idea that, as far as civil rights are concerned, Democrats are the real racists. Some choice passages:

Even as the nation celebrates the passage of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, some liberals are using the occasion to bash Republicans as inheriting the legacy of Jim Crow—ignoring the fact that a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. …

[T]he political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act. 

First, an observation: It would be nice if Fund had reckoned with National Review’s early defense of segregation, including William F. Buckley’s assertion that “the cultural superiority of White over Negro” is a “fact that obtrudes” and that “National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct. … It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” But to borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, you engage with the pundits you have, not the ones you want.

In any case, none of this is inaccurate. As Geoffrey Kabaservice shows in Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party, Republicans were a driving force behind the civil rights bills of the Eisenhower and Kennedy eras, and supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a much higher rate than Democrats in either chamber of Congress. What’s more, Democrats were the political beneficiaries of Jim Crow governance, dominating federal elections on the strength of a Solid South. And Fund is right: The defenders of Jim Crow—from Woodrow Wilson to Theodore Bilbo—were Democratic politicians. 

The problem with Fund’s argument is that he takes these facts, divorces them from historical context, and spins them into an unconvincing indictment of the modern Democratic Party and a disingenuous exoneration of its conservative counterpart.

The simple fact is that, despite surface similarities, the Republican and Democratic parties of midcentury were vastly different beasts than their contemporary counterparts. Unlike the ideologically coherent parties of today (i.e., most Democrats are liberals and most Republicans are conservatives), the Republicans and Democrats of the immediate postwar period were heterodox coalitions of interest and historical circumstance. Liberal Northeastern Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton shared influence and power with “stalwarts” like Gerald Ford and Everett Dirksen and hard-right conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Joe McCarthy. And on the other end, New Deal liberals in the mid-Atlantic and industrial Midwest were yoked to a huge faction of Southern segregationists.

It’s not too reductionist to say that civil rights—and more broadly, the Civil War and Reconstruction—were responsible for the general outline of this alignment. Even as the parties expanded westward in the 19th century, Republicans remained the party of the Union (and thus black Americans) and Democrats maintained their allegiance to the South." 

From Slate Magazine 

"Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, the landmark Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination and segregation regardless of race or color. It was originally introduced in congress by President John F. Kennedy before he was assassinated in 1963. 

Among those present at the signing were:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy 

Sen. Everett Dirksen

Sen. Hubert Humphrey

F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover"  

Source:Major Kong- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) 36th President of the United States (1963-69)

From Major Kong 

I mostly agree with what Jamelle Bouie here. I would just say that hyper-partisan Republicans today (regardless of what their political ideology actually is) like to blame people they call Liberals and the Democratic Party, for Jim Crow and say that's it's the Republican Party that ended Jim Crow and passed the civil rights laws. 

But the fact is, Far-Right Republicans would like to see those civil rights laws overturned today and go back to the way it is (so to speak) pre-1960s civil rights movement and the laws that were passed thanks to that movement. So are they Liberals today because they don't support the civil rights laws? Of course not. But they sort of suggest that they might think they are with their dishonest arguments about the civil rights laws. 

Today, the Democratic Party is primarily the center-left, progressive party in America, with a center-right New Democrat coalition in it (that I'm part of) and a left-wing that the Jamelle Bouie's of the world are part of, America's version of the Social Democrats or Euro Democrats. 

And the Republican Party is now home to people who were Dixiecrats in the 1960s, people like Strom Thurmond and many others in Congress back then, who were Democrats, until the passage of the civil rights laws. And the Republican Party has a center-right, classical conservative faction it as well today, people like Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Mike Lee, and other classical conservative Republicans in Congress today. 

But in the 1960s and go back 100 years earlier, the Republican Party was the party of progress. Or at the very least where you were more likely to find Progressives in it, even though it's always had a center-right, conservative faction in it. 

And the Democratic Party was the home of the Neo-Confederates, people who knew they lost the Civil War, but thought they would win the cultural war of the time by forcing African-Americans, as well as other racial and ethnic minorities, and women of all backgrounds, to live as second-class Americans under law. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Slate Magazine: Jamelle Bouie: The Neocons Already Destroyed Iraq Once

Source:Slate Magazine

There's an old American expression "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Which basically translates if you are dumb enough to get fooled multiple times by the same person, you are a fool who deserves to be fooled. The Neoconservatives lost the argument over Iraq as early as early as 2006 when their Republican allies in Congress were kicked out of the House and Senate because of Iraq and how badly the Bush Administration botched that war and occupation. And for all of the Republican support and American tax dollars to pay for those failures.

And because of all of this and the trillions of dollars added to the national debt and the thousands of lives America has lost in Iraq and the millions of lives Iraq has lost in Iraq a country of twenty-five-million people. Not a large country America except for portions of the Far-Right has no interest in going back in and trying to save a country from itself. Iraq has been left up to Iraq which was an original goal of the Bush Administration that the Obama Administration followed through on. Because they wanted to get us the hell out of Iraq a situation they knew couldn't be fixed by Americans themselves.

Iraq now has a functioning federal government and military even as flawed as it is. But at least it represents Iraq and they have the responsibility to govern and defend themselves. And if they aren't willing to live up to their own responsibilities they can't expect Americans to do that for them and be left with the bill for those operations.

Slate Magazine: Reihan Salam: NYC Mayor De Blasio's Welfare Mistake

SlateSource:

(via De Blasio and welfare: The New York City mayor’s terrible plan to reduce work requirements for recipients of public assistance.) 

I guess the Socialist has arrived in New York City to be their mayor in Bill De Blasio. In saying that people on Welfare there need not to go to work or be actively seeking work in order to receive their public assistance. I’m saying this half-jokingly and I agree with the Mayor that education and job training are important when it comes to people in Welfare who are low-skilled. But not as a replacement to working and looking for work. Because work experience especially people with paper-thin resumes even if they have a resume is a form of job training. 

The fact is we need all of these things when it comes to Welfare and moving people out of poverty which is what the 1996 Welfare to Work law is about. Moving people from Welfare to the fast food industry or working in other areas of the food service business and making minimum wage is not a success. Because they’ll still be on public assistance as it relates to public housing, food assistance and Medicaid. 

And saying to people on Welfare that they “can continue to collect their Welfare and not need to bother to even look for work let alone go to work. And maybe we’ll make educational and job training opportunities available to you. But that won’t be required either because we really just want to take care of people on Welfare. And less interested in moving people off of Welfare”. That doesn’t work either for obvious reasons and the key reason why Welfare was reformed in 1996. 

The goal of Welfare and public assistance in general is to move people off of public assistance and in to good jobs so they no longer need public assistance at all. That comes from a combination of education and work experience and this can be done at the same time as people on Welfare are improving their skills with a low-end job and improving their skills so they can get themselves a good job. 

Welfare to the middle class should be the goal of Welfare. Not Welfare to more Welfare. Or Welfare to independent poverty with no assistance for people to improve their lives.  

Slate Magazine: John Dickerson: Hillary Clinton's New Book Hard Choices Plays it Safe

(via Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices: Former secretary of state’s new book plays it safe.) 

Hillary Clinton did a book event last Friday with a local Washington book store Politics and Prose and was interviewed there by a women who worked for her at the White House in the 1990s and when Hillary was Secretary of State during the first Obama Administration. In her speech she was talking about hard choices even though she really didn’t mention any that she made herself. And also talked about big ideas even though she really didn’t mention any of her own. 

This is the major weakness of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and why she’s not President of the United States right now. She doesn’t let people know what she is about politically and doesn’t want to take hard stances on key issues other than the traditional key Democratic issues as it relates to women’s issues and civil rights. But then doesn’t seem to want to be on the record of the 21st Century Liberal Democratic issues as it relates to the War on Drugs and marijuana. To go along with privacy especially at it relates to the War on Terrorism. 

Hillary wants to be where she believes is the safest place for her politically. But she sees and American political scene that is looking for a strong leadership and strong leaders. So she believes the way to capture those voters is to talk about those things and try to convince people without giving much evidence to support herself as a strong leader that she believes in strong leadership too. So she talks about the need for ‘big ideas’ and writes a book called Hard Choices without laying out those things. 

If Hillary Clinton can’t communicate to the American voters Democrats and otherwise of why she should be the next President of the United States other than the need for electing a female President, she’ll lose another Democratic presidential contest where she was the heavy favorite going in. Because at the end of the day American voters want to know who they may vote for and what would come with electing that person and where they are on the key issues of the day. 

Slate Magazine: Jay Porter: A Small Business Owner's Care For Raising the Minimum Wage'

Source:Slate Magazine- a pro-minimum wage rally.

“Nine or ten dollars an hour? Twelve? Or all the way to $15?

For much of the country, significant minimum wage hikes are coming—at least in the areas where they haven’t happened already. Public debate on the issue in many states and cities has been reduced to a disagreement between the forces that want to keep increases to a small amount per hour and folks like Chicago’s “Fight for 15” group and new Seattle Mayor Ed Murray who propose a $15 per hour target.

People getting paid more for their work is a heartwarming notion, so it can feel pretty easy to get behind a $15 minimum wage on an emotional level. In terms of a more mathematical analysis, one sees macroeconomic cases made both for and against a high minimum wage: either that putting more money in the pockets of working people will strengthen spending and the economy or that increasing labor costs to business will result in higher unemployment.”

From Slate Magazine

There are several reasons why I'm in favor of raising the Federal minimum wage.  Minimum wage workers are under paid for the work that they do and the services that they perform for their employers. Cashier handle most, if not all, of the money that their employer receives. They provide a necessary and essential service to their company.  The company can't stay in business without it.

Underpaying service workers reduces their ability to live a decent life.  Taxpayers then have to assist these workers in meeting their costs of living.  There is also a cost to the economy in decreased economic growth because of the purchasing power that these workers don't have.  Henry Ford realized this at the beginning of the 20th century.

Do I believe everyone is entitled to earn at least a middle class living simply for being alive?  Of course not, I'm not a Socialist but I do believe that everyone is entitled to be paid the money that their work and services bring to the table.  $7.25 an hour for workers who are critical to the success of a business  is underpayment.  The cost of that underpayment is passed to taxpayers as public assistance and lost  economic growth. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Slate Magazine: Jamelle Bouie: Jim DeMint, American Abolitionism and Constitutional Conservatives

Source:Slate Magazine

Representative Michelle Bachmann announced she was running for president in, I believe, August of 2011.  Her  presidential campaign lasted all of four months.  It was one of the shortest presidential campaigns in American history.  When she announced that she was running for president, she called herself a constitutional conservative.  In the same speech, she came out in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit pornography and same-sex-marriage. I remember this well because I wrote a blog, then, about her presidential campaign announcement.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that if you call yourself a constitutional conservative,  you believe in conserving the U.S. Constitution.  The fundamental meaning of conservatism is the minimization of change.

When I heard Representative Bachmann describe her politics as constitutionally conservative and then suggest two new constitutional restrictions on personal behavior, I was thinking, "Could this radical and conservative be the same person?"  The U.S. Constitution is one of the most radical liberal documents ever written on the subject of individual rights.  I would expect that a constitutional conservative would want to conserve and protect the constitution, not amend it to curtail individual rights.  It is very clear that Representative Bachmann understands neither the U..S. Constitution nor conservatism.

The real constitutional conservatives of the past were Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Reagan. Those of today are Ron and Rand Paul, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and  Reason Magazine.   The love the United States Constitution for what it is and are not trying to amend or change it.  They want it observed as it is.  They, especially, do not want to give more power to government to control the behavior of individual citizens.

Slate Magazine: Dave Weigel: Sarah Palin vs. Beltway Republicans

Source:Slate Magazine

If Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin are the faces of Conservatism in America in 2014, then we might as well start planning its funeral and Liberals can declare victory in this ongoing ideological war of some 50 years now. The only two Conservatives at CPAC last weekend were Senator Rand Paul and former U.S. Senator/actor/talk show host/commercial spokesperson, whatever the hell Fred Thompson is up to now. But the rest of them, including Ann Coulter, who came down from Mars to give a speech about the so-called "browning of America," are all out to lunch at an all-you-can-eat- for-50-cents buffet and couldn't give an accurate description of Conservatism and what it means to be a Conservative to save their lives.

The far right of the Republican Party thinks the government is not too big when it comes to our personal lives, actually too small.  This wing of the GOP is alive and well with plenty of spokespeople for it like Senator Santorum and Ann Coulter, the Neoconservatives, which I and others call them. But anytime someone in the GOP seeking national recognition tries to run to the left of the far Right, which is where most of the country is no matter how far to the left of the far Right they are, they are put down by the Neo-Cons and labeled liberal or socialist.

2014 could've been the year that Governor Chris Christie took the reigns of the conservative movement and used it to launch his 2016 presidential campaign, but as it looks now, he might have a better shot at watching Election Night 2016 from jail than running for president at this point, let alone being elected President because of his corruption issues in a State, New Jersey, that may have invented political corruption. Actually, right now, New Jersey is competing with Illinois and Louisiana for the title of most corrupt State in America.

If there is a face of Conservatism in America, it would be Rand Paul, but again, the far Right is not going to allow a Conservative Libertarian, who is a Federalist on both economic policy and social policy, to be their GOP nominee for President. As long as the GOP needs a base that still believes it is 1955 and didn't bother to grow up and modernize like the rest of the country, they won't have that one national candidate who can bring the party together.

Slate Magazine: Dave Weigel: Why the Left is Stronger Without The Democrats

Source:Slate Magazine

It's generally not a good idea to compare American politics with British politics because the center left in America is not nearly as far to the left as the British center today, but especially 30 or 40 years ago when the Labour Party still had very strong Marxist elements. You would have better luck finding Evangelicals who embrace pornography, homosexuality, and prostitution in America than you would be able to find almost anyone who considers himself a Marxist.

America is a Federal Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy and Britain is a unitary monarchy in the form of a social democracy with no national constitution. So British politics, Left or Right, is much further left than American politics, at least when it comes to the two centers, but the American far left doesn't look much different ideologically from the center left in Britain. The two centers in America are Liberals on the Left and conservative libertarians on the Right. The two centers in Britain are socialists on the Left and conservative social democrats on the Right.

But what both countries have in common is that the two major parties in both countries have broad coalitions and diverse ideological factions in them because neither country has two dominant political factions big enough to occupy their party on their own yet govern the country by themselves. So you see the radicals on both sides of the pond trying to get those they want in top leadership positions and their policies addressed, and to push this as hard as they can but often ending up settling for the best of what whoever is in charge gives them.

And because of this I like to look at the Democratic Party as a party of JFK/Bill Clinton Liberals and FDR/LBJ Progressives who are generally in charge of the party, at least since post-1988 but even post-1984, that moved past the McGovern coalition to become a mainstream center left party. But there is still that George McGovern social democratic coalition that is anti-war, anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-corporate, and even anti-profit in a lot of cases, and wants to make America into a British or Scandinavian unitary government in which most of the governmental power would rest with the Federal state.

And because of this, and with the growth of both Liberals and Progressives in the Democratic Party, younger voters tend to be very liberal on social issues but also tend to be business owners or managers of small businesses or perhaps even military veterans from the Afghanistan or Iraq war.  They tend to be liberal on social issues but not anti-corporate, anti-business, or anti-military, and of course I'm not saying Liberals are, because we aren't, but young people in America tend not to be social democrats on the far left who believe they are under-taxed and that people have too much individual power.

Because of this, unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party doesn't need its fringe to be successful.  Without the Democratic Party, the far left wouldn't be heard much in American politics. I mean, who the hell is Dennis Kucinich without the Democratic Party?  Most of the country would have never heard of him and because of this going forward, the far left would be better off outside the Democratic Party, attempting to create a united national socialist or social democratic party they could call hom

Slate Magazine: Helen Vera- Against Solitary Confinement: State Are Finding it's Impractical as well as Immoral

Source:Slate Magazine

The current use of the process of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons is deplorable.  There are no guidelines relating the length of confinement to severity of offense.  The process is used at the discretion of onsite officials.  This results in wide variations with some cruel and counterproductive results.  Indefinite solitary confinement is simply inhumane and can only intensify anti-social tendencies in inmates suffering any psychological disturbance.

Solitary confinement should be used as a punishment that is commensurate with the offense committed and the need to convince the inmate that objectionable behavior is unacceptable.  It may provide a needed cooling-off period when there is conflict in the prison population.  It should be managed by psychological professionals.

Inmates considered too disturbed to live in the prison population are sometimes subjected to  indefinite solitary confinement because the onsite authorities have no other strategy for managing them.  This experience only makes them worse and makes the job of dealing with them much more difficult for the prison staff whose professional training is often inadequate. These inmates need to be in prison hospitals where they can do their time and get the mental health care they need.  Rotting away in solitary confinement only makes them worse.  Cutting them off from the prison world and outside world all together just makes them meaner and angrier and more convinced that they have nothing left to lose.  They take that anger out on the first people they see.  The really hard to manage inmates, who have consistent records of violently acting out, should be in mental institutions where they can get the help that they need.

A lot of us when we were kids had the experience of being sent to the office for acting out in class and even doing an in-school suspension.  The penalty box in a hockey game is an example of what isolation units in prisons should be for the mentally healthy inmates, a place they go for short-term punishment but then they go back to their normal prison life.
The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian- Man Forgotten in Solitary Confinement For Years

Slate: Bob Garfield: 'Why I love Big Government: a Valentine For Big Government'

Source:Slate- Who needs individual freedom, when we can all be taken care of by our Uncle Sammy? LOL

"Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. –Gallup Organization, Dec. 13, 2013

You are hulking and awkward, humorless and impatient. You are pathologically regimented and nerdy almost beyond belief. You are penny-wise and pound-freaking-ridiculous. Every now and then your behavior is simply reprehensible. So maybe this is perverse, because also—ewww­—you’re my uncle. But I am so in love with you."

You can read the rest at Slate

"Ayn Rand Institute Learns To Love Big Government"

Source:Secular Talk- Also in the news: Donald Trump admits to be being a crook and a lair.

From Secular Talk

Bob Garfield in his column in Slate today was explaining what he loved about big government and laying out a lot of the things that government does and calling them big government. The problem is that not all government is big and all civilized developed countries have a certain level of government that collects taxes to fund the operations that the people need government to do. Having a government does not necessarily mean that the government is big.

Big government actually is government trying to do too much and trying to make decisions for those qualified to make them for themselves, whether these decisions are economic or personal.

The safety net, the Postal Service, the military, law enforcement, homeland security are not big government, but trying to replace successful private industries with these agencies in the safety net or eliminating privacy with law enforcement, homeland security and defense would be big government because people would not have the freedom they need over their own lives.

There is small government that leaves almost everything up to the private sector. There is big government that basically tries to manage the economy even if it does not own the entire economy, but at the very least tries to manage the people in the economy for their own good.

But there is also big government that tries to eliminate personal choice and privacy because it does not trust the people to make decisions about their own lives. And these would be the differences between big government and a limited government. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Slate Magazine: Tanner Colby: Affirmative Action: It's Time For Leftists To Admit it Isn't Working

Source:Slate Magazine

As a liberal I believe in the notions of equal opportunity and justice for all. Without those two concepts liberalism simply doesn't mean a hell of a lot and it would just be a class philosophy. Taking from the few to care for the many is what separates liberalism from socialism. Liberalism is about empowering everyone, at least everyone who needs freedom, not taking from one pot to take care of everyone else, but expanding the pot for everyone.

Affirmative action, or what is called affirmative action, which means affirmative action for African, Asian, and Latino Americans, as well as Caucasian women who have fallen behind Caucasian men in the economy and education system, goes against the rock-solid liberal values that make liberalism the great philosophy that it is.  Instead of punishing  people for doing well, give them payback for discriminating against others.

Affirmative action denies one group of Americans economic and educational opportunities because of their race, and because of the fact that so many members of their race, and in some cases race and gender, already have those opportunities, it is simply unconstitutional and if we didn't have so many judges with socialist notions of equality at all cost, affirmative action would have been thrown out as unconstitutional 40 years ago.

As a liberal I also believe you can't achieve equality without liberty. For people to be as successful and as free as possible in society under a Rule of Law system, they must be able to achieve their full potential if they choose to and that is just one more problem with affirmative action: That if you want to empower the people who've been left behind in society (and in some cases at least it does have to do with their race, ethnicity or gender) the simple way to do that is to empower them and give them the tools they need to be as successful in society as possible.

The way to achieve liberty and equality for all, equal opportunity, and justice for all is first to throw out affirmative action, or at least reforming it to the point that it only benefits people who come from poverty regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, but my preference would be to throw it out and replace it with a system of strong civil rights enforcement, so you hit bigots in the economy and education. system in their wallets, so it would be in their economic disadvantage to deny people access because of race, ethnicity, or gender.  You would have an education system for students where everyone regardless of income level can go to a good school in this country and that means having educational choice and a universal job training system for low-skilled adults. 

I do not oppose affirmative action because I'm not a Liberal, but because I am a Liberal and believe in liberty and justice for all to go along with equal opportunity and justice for all.  That is exactly what liberalism is about, not equality for all at all cost, even with having racist policies in place to accomplish that, but a system where everyone can benefit instead, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

Slate Magazine: Matthew Yglesias: Work-Ethic & The Welfare State

Source:Slate Magazine

This is the real debate we should be having when it comes to poverty in America. How to encourage people who are on Welfare whether they are working or not working either continue to work or go to work or go back to work. And when you have a safety net where people can get more in benefits not working at all or working fewer hours or making less money because they could get more money at home collecting public assistance, you are not encouraging people to work, but encouraging people not to work at all.

This is why the minimum wage debate is so critical because that is at the heart at this debate. If you want people to work, then work has to pay and when you are looking at jobs that only pay the minimum wage which is just $7.25 an hour and people at these jobs could collect more in public assistance benefits, you are incentivizing low-skilled workers to not work or quit their jobs. Because they could get more money collecting Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance and other benefits.

This is also why this little discussion about the Earned Income Tax Credit is so important. Something that was signed into law by President Richard Nixon no one’s Socialist in the early 1970s. And called the most successful anti-poverty program in history by President Ronald Reagan no one’s Liberal. Even though he does look pretty liberal compared with the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. But now you have Tea Party Republicans saying we should repeal that. Even though the EITC encourages people in low-income jobs to continue to work and not quit their jobs to collect public assistance.

So what I would do is to increase the minimum wage to ten-dollars and hour or more. With a thirty percent tax break for small employers which would have to be clearly defined. And apply today’s minimum wage for a full-time worker on minimum wage to people on Welfare Insurance. While they collect their other public assistance benefits as well. Including things like assistance for education and job training so they can get themselves a good job.

Expand the EITC to singles making twenty-five thousand dollars a year. And for couples up to thirty-thousand dollars a year to encourage these people to work. And also include benefits for them so they can get the education and job training they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance. This is how you encourage work over Welfare by making it clear to people they can make more money working. Whatever the job is than not working at all.