Sunday, July 31, 2011

Malcolm X Network: Video: Malcolm X: We Didn't Land on Plymouth Rock

Source:FRS FreeState

Malcolm X. was clearly not a Saint, or a perfect person and America is not a country of Saints or perfect people. We have good, bad and in between all over the country. Hopefully more good than anything else. Malcolm X, started down the road as a lot of people growing up in rough neighborhoods and becoming a criminal. He’s one of the few in this country unfortunately who’s been in jail, that’s actually come out of jail as a better person. He made himself a better man and educated himself. He also went from being a criminal to a racist, or perhaps he was both at the same time. Basically seeing all Caucasians as Devils and perhaps he only knew racist Caucasians and believed because of that, that they were all like that.

But Malcolm X, was someone who learned and taught himself and bettered himself as he got older. Which is one of the reasons his early death was so tragic. Because we’ll never know how great Dr. Martin King and Malcolm X would’ve become as men, because they were both murdered in their late 30s, for both. But Malcolm X was a man who only got better as he got older, which why I believe he had such a strong following in the 1960s and if anything his following has gotten stronger in his death then when he was alive. With a great movie about his life with the great actor Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in the movie. Well, Malcolm X, easy enough to follow.

Which is again is just another reason why his death was so tragic, because he was so young to die and like Dr King could’ve accomplished so much more. Not just with civil rights, but I believe would’ve gone farther in the areas of poverty and speaking about empowering low-income people to get themselves out of poverty with assistance, but they would do the work to make it happen. As well as rebuilding American cities, so people living in them especially in low-income areas, would have a good shot at a much better life and escaping poverty. But what I respect most about Malcolm X, was his message of empowerment and freedom over dependence. Whether its dependence on public assistance, or anything else.

Low-income people, don’t have the same freedom to live their lives as middle class people, or wealthy people. They simply have very limited resources and are very limited in what they can do with their own lives, especially compared with the rest of the population. And Malcolm X message was about empowering these people to get the freedom that the rest of the population had to live their own lives. And not be dependent on public assistance, in the 1960s when the Great Society and all of these new government programs has contributed to making low-income people more dependent on public assistance for their survival. Public housing, is a perfect example of this, where you build a bunch of high-rise housing projects in low-income areas. Where all of these low-income people live in low-income areas. With high crime and their kids are stuck going to bad schools and having the same future as their parents, or worse.

Malcolm X, wanted low-income people especially in the African-American community, to have the freedom to live their own lives and not be dependent on public assistance their whole lives. And I believe education and choice in education would’ve been a big part of his message. A lot of the message around fighting poverty in America in the past and still today unfortunately, has been government centered and giving low-income people Welfare checks. Instead of empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need and giving them their freedom so they can earn good pay checks from a good job. But that’s changing, it started in the Clinton Administration in the 1990s with Welfare Reform in 1996 with a Republican Congress. Where they worked together to make that happen. But Malcolm X, I believe had a big role in getting this message started in the 1960s and for that a lot is owed to him. His Message of empowerment, is the biggest contribution he made to Africans-Americans and America as a whole

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Republican Study Committee: Washington Spending 101: Ronald Reagan is The Wrong Spokesman

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and brought in a Republican controlled Senate for the first time in twenty-six years led by Leader Howard Baker, he had a fairly basic agenda when he came in and was very disciplined in how he accomplished it. Turn the economy around, get it growing and creating jobs again and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His economic plan was centered around cutting taxes and regulations drastically and ending the Cold War by expanding the military in hopes of bringing the Russians to the negotiating table. And he didn’t really care about how this was accomplished as long as he did it.

As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.

President Reagan also worked very well with Bob Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.

As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. When he left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.

When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Christopher West: President Richard Nixon- The Inventor of the U.S. Health Care System?

Source:The FreeState

Whether you're a fan of HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) or not, there's one person as well as the Democratic Congress of 1971-73 or 92nd Congress, that you can thank. The people who brought employer based health insurance to America. Which basically means anyone with a good job, whether they work in the private or public sector, has health insurance partially paid for by your employer. And of course you pay the other part which is taken out of your paycheck. Apparently before we had HMO's we had a fairly efficient health care system as far as our costs. But not enough people were covered with health insurance. Which makes health care and health insurance more expensive for everyone else.

Which is one reason that Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965. To provide government-run health insurance for senior citizens and low-income people who haven't retired yet. However you feel about President Nixon, he did make a contribution to health care reform in America. Whether you believe it's a positive contribution or not. I don't have a problem with HMO's as long as they are regulated properly, which they weren't before the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That included a Patient Bill of Rights in it, which essentially means that HMO's and health insurers, can't turn down people who need health insurance when get sick, or put lifetime caps on the amount that people can consume in their health care.

Basically as long as people pay for their share of their health insurance, they can't get dropped from their health coverage. If this was done back in 1971-72, maybe we don't have the most expensive health care system in the developed world right now. President Nixon, took a stab at health care reform, President Carter the same thing, President Clinton as well with his famous debacle. President George W. Bush and it took President Obama and a Democratic Congress with large majority's in both chambers to get it passed. All of this work and debates could've been avoided if HMO's were regulated properly from the start and we could've saved our health care system forty years of inefficiency.

If we had a Patient Bill of Rights from the start, we could have saved trillions on health care the last forty years. But perhaps President Nixon and the Democratic Congress then, couldn't predict the abuses that would've come in the future. Whether you're a fan of President Nixon or not and yes his main contribution and focus he gave to America was in foreign policy with Russia, China and ending the Vietnam War, he also made a contribution in environmental policy and in health care as well. And he may of had a good idea at the time, but didn't put the right regulations in place. To prevent the abuses and the costs that came in the future.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Conel Rad: Video: Barry Goldwater 1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage

Source:The FreeState

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex. This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian Right theocratic Candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michelle Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said, “the problem with America is that we have a Moral Crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “Moral Crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them to.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Religious Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Krazy Kraz: Video: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech: Freedom vs. Communism

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom then they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Conel Rad: Video: The Choice 1964: Decay of American Morality

Source:The FreeState

There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement, I’m paraphrasing the title. It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a Book Store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the Popular Vote in that Presidential Election and won like ten States.

Barry Goldwater inspired Classical Conservatives young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.

And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.

Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.

All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The Conservative Will: President Ronald Reagan on Taxes in 1986: A Good Case For Tax Reform

A Liberal Democrat could’ve basically given the same speech on tax reform that Ron Reagan a Conservative Republican gave. I mean Jack Kennedy could’ve given the same speech that President Reagan gave, or it would’ve sounded very similar. And he probably gave a similar speech when he pushed for deep tax cuts in the early 1960s. The American tax system is so complicated that accountants hire other accountants to fill out their Federal taxes and tax lawyers hire other tax lawyers to come up with tax loopholes for them. These might sound like jokes, but they’re not far off.

The Federal Government has gotten to the point and this has gone on for at least thirty years if not longer, that if they want Americans to do something that they believe in their “brilliant wisdom”, is in the best interest for the country, they write a tax credit to encourage people to do it. Whether its education for their kids, or giving to charity, or planning for their own retirement. And there’s a lot more and it’s not that these causes aren’t worthwhile, because a lot of them are. But they all get written in the tax code, that’s gotten so big, that you now have to be a super weightlifter in order to pick the damn thing up and walk around with it. Actually a lot football players now stay in shape by power-lifting the tax code.

Insomniacs now read the tax code night after night and I should know I’m one of them. It helps them go to sleep and plus reading that book, you never run out of reading material. Because Congress writes a new tax law almost every day. It’s basically the only thing the Senate does now a days besides general speeches. Thats another place that insomniacs go to when they need to get some sleep, the Senate to listen to hours of general speeches. I almost feel sorry for the Senate typist who has to write all these speeches down hours and hours of them. The tax code is so big now, that you need a pickup truck or a minivan, without seats to move it around. It is something like 70,000 pages the population of Wilmington, Delaware and don’t ask me how I know that. In summary too much free time.

To be totally serious for a minute, (like totally!) or as serious as I can be and this should only take about a minute and if I run out of time, I’ll ask a Senator to yield to me, the Senator could probably use some water, or catch their breath and now I’ll be serious for real. What we should do instead is throw out the current tax code. If we can find a trash dump big enough to carry it and will take it and reform our Tax Code. Move to a tax system that lowers the rates and broadens the base and doesn’t raise taxes on anyone who can’t afford to pay more. And doesn’t raise taxes enough to discourage wealth creation. Lower rates on most, individuals and business’s, but throw out all the tax loopholes, or most of them. And give people more freedom to spend their own money that they worked for the way they want to. Instead of Uncle Sam (who’s no ones favorite uncle unless you’re a Socialist) telling us how to spend our own money that we made on our own.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Conel Rad: Ronald Reagan- A Time For Choosing (1964)

Source:Conel Rad- Then private citizen Ronald Reagan, speaking in favor of Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964 

Source:The FreeState 

"Ronald Reagan delivers his "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Senator Barry Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 general election. "The Speech" as it is also known launched Reagan's political career. Two years after this film was broadcast on NBC on October 27, 1964, he was elected governor of California. Contrary to some entries on Wikipedia and elsewhere, Reagan did NOT deliver this speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. He taped it on a soundstage in Hollywood, California."

From GOP Convention

I wonder if the RNC Delegates still thought they nominated the right person for President in 1964. Actually, when it came to speaking for classical conservatism, Ron Reagan and Barry Goldwater were probably about equal. Except that Reagan had some better lines and better humor. He was essentially a comedian in Hollywood who could also act a little bit, as well as a comedian as a politician. And wrote most of his material, something good comedians have as an advantage as speakers over non-comedians. They can speak off the top of their head. Reagan also had the ability to put down the opposition with humor, without sounding like a jerk.

Reagan was great at getting people to laugh at themselves and laugh at him intentionally as well. 1964 was the last general election that the Democratic Party owned the South even though they won in a landslide, the White House and Congress. Even with Senator Goldwater's huge defeat, he managed to win some Southern states that the Democratic Party previously owned. 

Goldwater had some success in the South, because he opposed the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, on libertarian-constitutional ground. But part of it was also Senator Goldwater and Ron Reagan with their classical conservative message of limited government and more individual freedom. That they took across the country, including in the South. That made the Republican Party competitive all across the country, even in the Northeast and Far West.

This was an era from around 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, up to 1992 with George H.W. Bush where the Republican Party was truly the Grand Ole Party. That was about limited government and individual freedom. That Eisenhower, Goldwater, Gerry Ford and Reagan communicated so well. And why they won 7-10 presidential elections and became competitive in Congress again. Even holding the Senate for eight years in that time period, which at the time was a huge accomplishment for them. Where in the 70s and 80s they would speak to the Christian-Right but wouldn't give them anything. How times and the Republican Party have changed.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Gary Johnson Takes The Heat

Gary Johnson is a classical case of someone not fitting in with a party. (Pun intended) Or a skunk in the room. I mean, a Libertarian running for president in today's Christian/Neoconservative Republican Party. Who to some extent still loves their economic freedom (for rich people) and the right to bare arms and their political speech (that they agree with) and Freedom of Religion. (As long as you're a Christian of course) But thats about all the freedom they love and about all they have in common with the Libertarian movement, which doesn't have a big government faction. Unlike the Republican Party with it's Christian Right/Neoconservative faction, where Republican presidential candidates can't get nominated or elected today without their support.

Another problem that Gary Johnson has which is just as big, is that two of the first three Republican primary's/caucus's is Iowa and South Carolina. With Iowa being the first and both of these states have large Christian-Right factions in them. Governor Johnson would be lucky to win 2-3% of the vote there. One thing that Gary Johnson does have going for him which by itself is not enough for Governor Johnson to win the Republican nomination, but is something is that New Hampshire is right after Iowa. And is a state with strong libertarian leanings in it. Sort of how the way the Republican Party as a whole used to be.

New Hampshire, is a state where Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, John Huntsman, Rudy Giulani and of course Mitt Romney, could potentially do well there. Because generally speaking it doesn't care about social issues. This is a State that's elected and reelected pro-choice Republicans to the Senate and House. Like Warren Rudman and Jim Jeffords. Senator Jeffords left the Senate in 2007 and served in Congress for over thirty years combine service. So pro-choice Republicans in New Hampshire is nothing new to them and has been around a long time. After all, the state motto in New Hampshire is 'give me liberty or give me death'.

So if Gary Johnson managed to I don't know, get into some Republican debates between now and December and do well, he could have some momentum going into New Hampshire. Gary Johnson to me is a classical case of the skunk at the party. Because he's running for president in a party that's no longer anti-big government and has loosen it's grip on being pro-limited government. Which is why he doesn't have a snowballs chance in South Florida in July of winning the Republican nomination for president.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Elephant Owners Dotcom: Ronald Reagan on Socialism

Source:The FreeState

Ronald Reagan I believe back in 1964 or 65 when he made this speech comparing socialism with liberalism try’s to link socialism with liberalism, as if they are one in the same. A classical Conservative who’s as intelligent and articulate as Ron Reagan, should know that socialism and liberalism are two different political ideology’s not one in the same. Socialism and liberalism does have one thing in common though, they are both progressive meaning they believe that government can be used to make society better. But are completely different in how they accomplish these goals.

Socialism is collectivist meaning that Socialists believe that government especially the central government and in America’s case the Federal Government, should be used to make society better through social insurance programs meaning the welfare state. Things like education, health care, health insurance, pension, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, banking, energy etc. And that all these services should be provided by the central government, or that the central government should at least have a major role in providing these services.

And what government doesn’t run, it highly taxes and regulates whatever private sector there is. To finance the welfare state and take care of people who don’t have enough. And that no one should be able to make a lot more money than others. Even if they earned and created most if not all the wealth that they have. And that no one essentially should be able to make a lot of money compared with the rest of society and that people who make a lot of money should be highly taxed to take care of the people who don’t have enough.

Socialism is very statist when it comes to economic policy and I don’t mean that to be insulting. But descriptive, but socialism is more than just an economic policy. It’s a fully developed political ideology that also have views on both social policy and foreign policy. Socialists tend to liberal to libertarian on social issues, just look at Canada and Sweden for example where both of those democracy’s have a lot of social freedom. Way too much social freedom in the eyes of theocrats and other authoritarians in America and other countries. Socialists tend to be dovish and isolationist on foreign policy and law enforcement.

Liberalism however is very anti-statist and big government in general. And very anti-establishment as well. Liberals don’t have much faith in centralized power public, or private. And believe government should be used to protect people’s constitutional rights and protect people from being hurt by others. But not regulate how adults live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and when it comes to liberalism, that means freedom and responsibility for the individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. And that government can be used to empower people who are down get themselves up with a hand up not a hand out. Socialism and liberalism are both progressive, but in different forms. Socialism is about empowering government to make society better. Liberalism is about empowering the people to make their own lives better.

Friday, July 8, 2011

Brittle: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose

I think its great that a libertarian like Milton Friedman can sit down to an interview with someone who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist like Phil Donahue. Someone who I again I have a lot of respect for, but who I rarely agree with. I love Milton Friedman, but I don’t agree with him on everything either. But I think its great that these two brilliant men can sit down and have an intelligent conversation without trying to kill each other. Being respectful with each other without agreeing on anything. Something that Bill Buckley was able to do with Liberals and Socialists, without agreeing on anything with them as well either.

By the way, Milt Friedman didn’t consider himself a Libertarian but a Classical Liberal. As someone who’s a Classical Liberal in myself, but just considers myself to be a Liberal, I disagree with Mr Friedman. I view himself as a Libertarian, because he believes government should be completely out of the economy and is for legalizing all narcotics. I disagree with both of those positions. I support legalizing with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because it represents the same dangers, or less than alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs. But I don’t support legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth. Which are narcotics that can kill people instantly. I don’t believe non-heroin, cocaine and meth users, should be forced to subsidize the health costs of these drug users.

I believe that government has a limited role in the economy, a very limited role. To prevent and stop people from hurting other people in the economy for example and providing a Safety Net for people who fall through the cracks. By giving them a hand up, not a hand out to move to self-sufficiency. Friedman, essentially believed government had has no role in the economy. He would be for eliminating Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. No regulations for seat belts and safe cars and mileage standards and a lot more. He and I simply disagree here, which is one reason why he’s a Libertarian and I’m a Liberal. I believe government should protect people from hurting other people, but not themselves, different positions.

But here’s where Milt Friedman and I agree and if the Republican Party had more people like him today, they would truly be an anti- big government party. Maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Very simple, but an important concept. Socialists, aren’t fans of maximize freedom generally. Because if you give people a lot of freedom, they might take advantage of it. And be less dependent on government and make a lot more money than others.

Socialists, tend not to be fans of responsibility, thinking that taxpayers should be forced to bail people out when they make bad choices in life. Authoritarians, don’t like the concept of maximize freedom either, whatever the party they belong to. They believe that government should be able to regulate how people live their own lives. But if adults want to own a gun, smoke a joint, look at porn, pay for sex, sell themselves for sex, drink, smoke, whatever the case is, let them do that, because its their own life. But don’t expect government to bail you out when you make bad choices and don’t force other people to do something they don’t want to and don’t hurt them. All actions have consequences good and bad.

CNBC: Representative Michele Bachmann On Social Issues

Representative Michelle Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged Stool. That represents fiscal Conservatives, meaning the Tea Party, national security Conservatives probably meaning Neoconservatives and social Conservatives meaning Christian Conservatives and in America that would mean the Christian-Right. Apparently she did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.
With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians.

Because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians in the Tea Party. Who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy.
But Michelle could unite the Christian-Right behind her. This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged Tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And they go off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because their positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Neoconservative on social issues and national security and a fiscal Conservative.
A candidate like this can’t appeal to Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still classical Conservatives out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live. Michelle Bachmann is a religious Conservative with a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for.

Monday, July 4, 2011

NFLN: Top 10 Most Feared Linebackers of All Time: Number One Dick Butkus

Source:The Daily Press

When I think of tough players in the NFL, I think of guys who could and did scare the hell out of their opponents, if not people watching the game as well. I think of guys who not only scared the hell out of their opponents on the football field but on film in practice, putting the fear of God into offenders and offensive coaches and head coaches. Wow, we are facing this guy this week, how are we going to block him or how many guys are we going to need to block him on any play?

I can think of a guy who not only hit and tackled his opponents but also hit them so hard that they knew exactly who hit them, because they never felt that kind of pain from anyone else. Offenders were always trying to avoid Dick Butkus, who was a 6'3", 240 to 245-pound MLB with the Bears from 1965 to 1973 and at his size was playing middle linebacker at a time when everyone else that size was an offensive or defensive lineman. This meant you basically needed an OL to block him, and probably a couple of them.

Butkus was all muscle, and not only huge and strong, but fast as well.  He probably ran a 4.4 to 4.5 forty, which is similar to Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis, three LBs who weigh about the same and are all muscle, but Taylor and Lewis played in an era where big LBs were typical. The closest LB I've seen to Butkus's size, strength, and athletic ability would be Brian Urlacher.  I am not saying Urlacher is as good as any of these other LBs, because he's not, but he is headed to the Hall of Fame.

Urlacher is a 6'4", 265-pound MLB, again the size of a DL playing middle linebacker because of his athletic ability and speed. These guys are freaks as athletes, but especially as linebackers, but Dick Butkus was the first freakish LB who was also a great player and is still the best at his position and best LB ever, period.

The name Dick Butkus itself sounds like a tough guy. It doesn't sound like the name of a jockey.  Wiley Pope sounds like the name of a jockey, but Dick Butkus sounds like the name of a macho individual who probably played football and perhaps even had to play football to relieve some of his testosterone.  If he hadn't played football, he might have ended up in jail or something; that last part is a joke, but you get the idea.

Some people who are less impressed with Dick Butkus, to put it mildly, make the argument that Butkus only played nine seasons, so his greatness isn't as impressive because it wasn't as long.  What they fail to realize is that what Butkus accomplished in his nine seasons has been matched by no other, which is why he's the best. Jim Brown also only played nine seasons but what he accomplished in nine seasons, no other running back has matched: nine-time Pro Bowler, eight rushing titles, and never missed a game as well.

Dick Butkus left the NFL as the all-time leader in fumble recoveries, 30 INT again in nine seasons as a MLB, not a corner or safety. He once sacked the quarterback 20 times in a season, again as a MLB not as a DL, also in a 14-game season. But these are just stats.  The way to judge Dick Butkus is the same way you need to judge Jim Brown. What did he bring to to the table and what did offenses have to do to stop him? 

Another way to judge Dick Butkus is to look at the position he played. He played MLB, meaning that the offense always knew where he lined up and could always prepare for him. He was predictable in a sense; he wasn't a rush end like a OLB/DE Hybrid who lined up in several different positions always looking for the best matchup like, let's say, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas.

Offenses knew where he was and still couldn't stop Butkus. Dick Butkus was the best ever at what he did, because he basically couldn't be stopped.  He played the last four seasons of his career on two bad knees, which is why he only played nine seasons, but he was still an eight-time Pro Bowler.  Dick Butkus was the most feared and the best LB to ever live.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960