Norman Thomas VS Barry Goldwater: Socialism VS Conservatism (1961)

Source:The Daily Journal

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with. But what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism. Not communism, or Marxism, but basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide. Debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing. And Socialists today, even though they prefer to be called Progressives, share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary. But they would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

So you need, well a big government, according to the Democratic Socialist, big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector. Things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens: In Defense Of Unpopular Speech

Source:Real Life Journal

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Progressive/Socialist. A bit left to me on economic policy, to put it mildly, but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs and yes free speech. But Freedom of Speech is exactly that, the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that, the right to speak whether its popular or not.

That since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's Progressives and Neoconservatives have never grasped. Who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and Progressives, but of course Neoconservatives view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film, but thats a different story, is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect. The right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. What this movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel. "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth, it was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation.

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand Interview (1979)

Source:Real Life Journal

This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver. But came from very different sides of the political spectrum. Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a Progressive/Socialist even. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government. Ayn, whose see government’s role as basically doing nothing more, than to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there’s only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.

The Phil Donahue belief I guess, is when people have a lot of economic freedom, we see too much income inequality, that we should tolerate in a democracy. And that we need a strong Federal Government to provide the human services, that we shouldn’t trust private enterprise to do for the people. And if that means having high taxes to pay for these human services, so be it. If that means we get good public services from all of these taxes. So this was a discussion between two people, who have very different views in what the role of government is and what it should be doing for its people. But two people who are very intelligent and can make their case very well in how they look at the world ideologically.

The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy. Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren’t spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue.

CBS Evening News: Walter Cronkite's Interview of President Kennedy (September 2nd, 1963)

Source:The Daily Press

In September, 1963, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite sat down with President Jack Kennedy and interviewed him up in Massachusetts. To talk about the issues he was dealing with. Jack Kennedy, knew the power of TV about as well, or better than anyone in the 1960s and even 1950s. So he probably wanted to do this type of interview and to layout for the country what he was working on and wanted to accomplish. This interview happened fourteen months before the 1964 presidential election. And just a little over two months before he was assassinated and in late 1963.

President Kennedy, had an economy that was weakening and was trying to get a jobs plan through Congress. That included a large tax cut that cut taxes across the board. Including bringing the top rate down from 90 to 70% and the bottom rate from 25 to 20%. And this economic plan contributed to creating the economic boom of the 1960s. President Kennedy was also dealing with civil rights and making sure that Federal Court orders were being carried out. And that African-American students were able to go to once segregated schools and so-forth.

And this is the time that President Kennedy came out strongly in favor of civil rights and introduced a civil rights bill to Congress. And of course President Kennedy was also dealing with the United States early involvement in the Vietnam Civil War as well. President Kennedy, had a lot on his plate to deal with in 1963 and it would’ve been nice to see him at least try accomplish all the things that he wanted to do to deal with these issues. A lot of what President Lyndon Johnson got passed in Congress was finishing off the agenda that President Kennedy put forward and sent to Congress. But was unable to get through the House and Senate.

Reason Magazine: Rupe Poll- Emily Ekins- Gary Johnson Could Take 6 Percent of the Vote: 77% of Libertarians Voting For Mitt Romney

Source:FreeState Now

Gary Johnson not moving many Libertarians over to him yet. I don't say that to be insulting, because a lot of that has to do with the fact that the third-party candidates don't even get polled. They'll poll President Obama and Governor Romney and then maybe voters third choice, but not Governor Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein. The two major third-party candidates in the presidential race. If we had a political system where the the two major party candidates and the major third-party candidates were all polled and all given universal ballot access in each state, someone like a Gary Johnson I believe would do fairly well. Not saying he would win, but he could be hitting twenty-percent or so and bring the two major candidates under fifty and perhaps even forty. And even win some states, because he represents a lot of Americans on the issues. Big believer in personal freedom and fiscal responsibility and a safety net for people who actually need it. But we wouldn't know that, because he's rarely even polled. And wasn't polled at all when he was a Republican.

HLN: Showbiz Tonight Countdown- Best Burnett Ever!

Source:The Daily Journal

One of the best variety comedy shows of all-time, sort of like a half-hour Saturday Night Live. Speaking of SNL, SNL gets a lot of credit for being such an original variety skit-comedy show that other shows have tried to follow and make their own versions of it. And all of that is true, but Carol Burnett, was essentially the same thing, but came out 6-7 years earlier in the late 1960s, instead of 1975 with SNL and was on CBS instead of NBC. And you could make a case that Carol Burnett herself and her show with his her great cast and writers, inspired shows like Saturday Night Live and later In Living Color, MADD-TV and other skit comedy shows. Because of how good it was, how original it was, the topics it covered. That it wasn't about sending a political, or cultural message, but about making fun of everyday American life.

The Carol Burnett Show, covered and had everything and they weren't about politics at least in the sense they were trying to push some political message. It was simply about entertainment and what was going on in America at the time especially as it related to pop culture. And always looking for the funny side of everything they covered. They mad fun of politicians, movies, TV shows, actors, musicians, weren't worried about political correctness and pleasing everybody. But great comedians who all had similar sense of humors, great chemistry, who liked each other loved working with each other. And in that sense at least it reminds me of Seinfeld and was better than Saturday Night Live, that generally looks at politics from a political slant. Carol Burnett, was simply about making people laugh and doing it in a classy way and having a great time at it.

David Kelley On Ayn Rand & the Rebirth of Liberty (1991)

Source:FreeState Now

In the last ten years or so, we’ve both lost and gained freedom in America. We lost some of our privacy rights during the Bush Administration. With the Patriot Act and indefinite detention, but have gained some of those rights back, as it relates to same-sex marriage, homosexuality in general, where anti-homosexual laws have lost steam and popularity in the country. Same-sex Marriage has become legal in some states. Even some Republicans now believe that employers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. Sodomy laws have been struck down, the country is now split on marijuana and it may win legalization in some states in 2012.

Free Speech continues to be defended and upheld in the Supreme Court, as much as Neoconservatives and Progressives have tried to weaken it. So we’ve seen a mix bag when it comes to freedom in America the last ten years. But the last ten years or so the country has moved towards individual freedom and embracing it, as well as non discriminatory policies. And we are becoming even more of a nation at least as how Americans looks at politics, that wants government out of our homes and wallets.

Individual freedom, is something that has to continue to be spoken up for and defended. Or like anything else once its taken for granted, it will be taken away, from people on the right and left that believe that individual freedom is dangerous. And we need the state to lay down what’s acceptable. Even when it comes to how Americans live their own lives, because once they have individual freedom, we may end up making what statists on the right and left see as mistakes that are bad for the country. “And that cannot be allowed to exist, so we need restrictions on how people live their lives, so government can protect people from themselves at their expense.” Not my point of view, but a statist point of view.

President John F. Kennedy & His Generals

Source:FreeState Now

Its pretty clear that President Kennedy’s generals didn’t respect him as Commander-in-Chief at least not at first. President Kennedy, was a liberal internationalist and Cold Warrior, but in the liberal sense. That you need to be strong at home, as well as abroad. That liberal democracy and liberty, are things worth fighting for. But that America, can’t do everything by ourselves and can’t police the world by ourselves. That there’s a limit to even what American power can do, even military power. And that we have to use all of our resources as a country. Military, economic, our people, our freedom, our media and show people who live in authoritarian states, what American freedom is like. And what they’re missing living under an iron curtain. Which is called diplomatic as well as political power. Which is what liberal internationalism, liberal foreign policy and liberal cold warriors were about.

President Kennedy’s generals, his Joint Chiefs, would probably be called Neoconservatives today. Even though they were working for a Liberal Democratic President, in a Liberal Democratic administration and a Liberal Democratic National Security Council. They believed, you judge strength, by how tough you talk, how much you spend on your military and what you say you’re going to do. They were always a military first and perhaps only group. Who believed diplomatic and economic power were signs of weakness. Does any of this sound like a previous administration? And I could also add shoot first and ask questions later. Does that sound like the Iraq War of 2003? And that was never Jack Kennedy, who hated communism and authoritarianism as much as anyone as a Liberal Democrat. But was much smarter and realistic about how he approached it.

President Jack Kennedy, against his generals in 1961 and 62, sounds to me like John Kerry, vs. Dick Cheney today. The liberal negotiator and freedom fighter, vs the tough talker. Who believes that authoritarianism in other countries should be wiped out, period. “Do that first and figure and then figure out what comes later, if you can. But it eliminating the authoritarian regime which is what is important.” And its a good thing that someone as cool and smart as Jack Kennedy, who also happened to be a Liberal Democrat, was President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because it was his approach which is what ended it. Had the Neoconservatives been in charge back then, maybe we end up going to war with Russia in the 1960s.

Lynn Stuart Parramore: 'Are You Ready For a Post Masculine World?'

Source:The Daily Journal

Men who needs them? A Far-Left pipe dream where men are not even welcome, or where masculinity disappears, or where all men are essentially gay. I find it ironic that people on the Far-Left who are so anti-male man-haters, tend to be somewhat dykish even and have masculine characteristics themselves. Even though they claim to be anti-masculinity. They see football, boxing, interest in cars, tools, gambling, checking out attractive women and I could go on, but I have other things I would like to accomplish in my life, but they see all of these activities as somehow sexist. Even though a lot of American women, straight even, like football, boxing, cars, tools, gambling, etc and are some of the most feminine, beautiful and sexy women you’ll ever see.

It is not so much masculinity that the man-hating sexist Far-Left doesn’t like. Well they don’t like masculinity, but it’s male masculinity and male heterosexuality that they don’t like. But if women are a Dyke, no problem, because she’s just being who she was born as. According to Socialists on the Far-Left who don’t like masculinity when it comes from straight men. You’ll never see straight men, or women who are to the right of Socialists, democratic or otherwise, which is only most of the world, try to put down female femininity. Because we love women, especially straight women. At least coming from a straight man. We love who they are and how versatile that they are. That they’re cute, beautiful, well-built, funny, but they’ll also stand up for themselves and watch sports with the guys.

There straight women who like sports and there are straight men such as myself, who like soap operas. If they’re funny, well-written, well-done and seem to have some broader point other than, ‘who is Jake going to stab in the back now.’ Or whoever the character is. Without straight men and yes we tend to be masculine which is a common characteristic about straight men and something that straight women tend to like about us, we would have a country of gay men and overly adorable and feminine straight women who never grow up. We would be a national day care center and kindergarten class. With no one to fix the cars when they break down, police the streets, defend the country and so-forth. Because all the men would be makeup artists, or clothing designers. Well I guess the dykes could handle the male responsibilities. It would be a strange universe where everyone who enters who use to live on Planet Earth would think they drank too much, or got too high the night before.

New American: Raven Claybough- Gary Johnson Sues For Participation For in Presidential Debates

Source:FreeState Now

Go Gary! I'm with you on this one. It would be great for the debates and liberal democracy as a whole. And we would finally get to here another voice. Instead of Center-Left in President Barack Obama, against whoever Mitt Romney decides to be for the debate. At the very least we need to go to a main event and undercard debate system when it comes to the presidential debates. Where if the major third-party candidates and in this case the major third-parties are the Libertarian Party lead by Gary Johnson and the social democratic Green Party, led by Jill Stein, could debate each other in the undercard. As Governor Romney and President Obama debating each other in the main event. With network and cable news covering both events. If you don't have a system where all four candidates debates each other at the same time.

Public Resource: CBS News Longines Chronoscope: U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen in 1952

Source:The Daily Post

Members of Congress in both parties are always looking to weaken executive power. Especially since president’s are always looking to increase executive power. Which is what this debate is about and what Senator Dirksen was trying to do to have the members of this board having to all be approved by the U.S. Senate. During the 1930s the Roosevelt Administration under the New Deal, created all sorts of new programs, boards, agencies that had jurisdiction over the economy. And what Senator Dirksen wanted to do was to have these boards and board members have to be approved by the Senate. With both the Senate and House having Congressional oversight over these boards.

Many of these boards and agencies that were created by the New Deal were permanent boards and agencies. The President can put together short-term commissions and boards to study issues and come up with policy proposals and these things are put together all the time. But these commissions don’t have subpoena power generally and can’t issue new rules and regulations that business’s and individuals have to comply with. So what Senator Dirksen wanted to do here with this board since it was permanent with regulatory power was to have the members be approved by the Senate and have to report to Congress. Both the House and Senate.

This interview was done in 1952 when the country was at peace for the most part even though we were involved in the Korean Civil War. And the economy that was in depression for most of the 1930s and came out of that and recovered in the 1940s thanks to World War II. And Senator Dirksen’s line about fake prosperity had to do with the fact that the American economy was booming at this point, because we were at war and had so many me oversees and fighting. Which created millions of jobs at home with so many men out of the country. Plus with all the middle class jobs that were created at home to fight World War II and then later the Korean War. And I guess Senator Dirksen was saying that America wouldn’t have the prosperity at home if we weren’t fighting abroad.

ESPN: Behind The Fights Documentary- Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson- February, 1990

Source:Real Life Journal

I saw the James Douglas-Mike Tyson World Heavyweight Championship fight as a fourteen year old in junior high on HBO in February, 1990. Actually I saw the replay of it, after I heard the shocking news that James Buster Douglas defeated Iron Mike Tyson for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was shocking, because Mike Tyson look unbeatable for about five years from 1985 until 1990. Holding the WHC for about four years. He just didn't look unbeatable, but he was destroying his opponents.

Beating former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. He's right there with Muhammad Ali and you could argue either way, but with Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter. Tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.

Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches.

David Von Pein: ABC News JFK Assassination As it Happened-11/22/1963

Source:The Daily Press

ABC News, was such a small operation in the early 1960s. Sorta like the baby sister or baby brother of NBC and CBS News. They didn’t become a major operation at least until the late 1960s or early 70s, when Howard Smith took over as the anchor of the ABC Evening News. And probably not even a major competitor as far as first being in news when it came to the TV networks until the late 70s and early 80s. When Nightline with Ted Koppel came on the air and covered the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

ABC News, won a lot of rewards for their depth coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. It made Ted Koppel a star and household name and if you look at this coverage of the JFK assassination, you don’t see a clear anchor of this coverage. It looks more like a news update or something. When CBS News went on the air, with this story, Walter Cronkite when their number one anchor, broke in right away to report this story. And the same thing with NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, they went their main people their stars. You don’t see that with ABC News.

With what ABC News had to work with back then and again being in third place out of the three networks and being so far back it looked like fifth place, I think they actually did pretty well. And were on top of the story. They were the so-called CW or My-TV, whatever that is, or even FOX. Being so small that they didn’t even have a news division, or weren’t interested in news at all. FOX, of course now has a news obviously. ABC, was a national TV network back then, but didn’t have the affiliates and ratings that CBS and NBC did.

John Stossel: Gary Johnson- A Libertarian For President

Source:FreeState Now

If you poll or ask I bet the overwhelming majority of Americans, they'll tell you that they tend to believe in fiscal responsibility, at least with government. Perhaps not so much with their own finances and they believe in at least some level of tolerance when it comes to social issues. That people should be treated as such, not by what groups they are members of, as long as they are not criminals or something, but be treated as individuals not members of groups. And be able to be as successful in life, based on how hard they work and how productive that they are.

Americans tend to believe that people shouldn't be judged by who they know. Who their parents are or what groups they are members of and so-forth, on paper at least. An audience like this should play very well for someone like Gary Johnson. Americans like things like Social Security and Medicare and what you got from Libertarians in the past, was that these programs were unconstitutional and should be abolished. As such but that's not what you get from Gary Johnson, who says these programs have a purpose, but that the Federal Government shouldn't be running them. And that the states should have more authority to govern their own people.

But for whatever reasons and most of it has to do with our two-party system duopoly, Gary Johnson can't seem to do higher than 5% in the polls. And I bet the Johnson/Gray Campaign polls, assuming they have pollsters, are telling Gary Johnson and Jim Gray similar things. But it's not because of the message, but the fact that Democrats and Republicans with all the commissions and so-forth where they are only represented.

The Democrats and Republicans, have set up a system that only benefits them and is why this system should be blown up. So we can have more voices and more philosophies represented in it. And people like Gary Johnson would then do a lot better politically in it, because more Americans would hear the message and decide, this person kinda looks at politics they way I do and I should not only vote for them because we tend to agree, but now they even have a chance to win and not play spoiler.

Associated Press: Judge Denies Request to Stop Anti-Muslim Trailer

Source:FRS FreeState

If this actress in this movie was misled about this movie that she was in, then she probably has a good case. That she should take to court and sue the makers of this movie over that and be rewarded compensation for that. Assuming she didn't know that she was going to be part of an islamaphobic film and I don't know if she was misled or not, but as far as getting the movie shut down, over that, that simply won't happen. 

We have a First Amendment in this country that protects Freedom of Speech, which movies would clearly come under, because they clearly have speech in them. And when they are in documentary form, they are delivering a message and perhaps intended to inform people about the subject matter that the film is covering. And seeing speech that you love or hate, is part of sharing and living in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen million people. We can control what we see and hear, but can't shut people up on our own. 

Suing people might be part of the American Way in America, but free speech is clearly the American Way and has to be protected. Whether it's peaceful speech, hate speech, accurate speech or inaccurate Speech. It's not the job of government to protect us from what they may see as dangerous speech. We have the freedom to make these decisions for ourselves. 

Brave New Foundation: Law & Disorder

Source:The Daily Journal

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. There job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.

Liberty Pen: A Story Of Enterprise (1955)

Source:Real Life Journal

This is clearly a propaganda film from people who believe in American capitalism and private enterprise. But the message is correct that people themselves are better off working and producing things and seeing what they can do for themselves, based on hard work and production. And not relying on government to do it for them. The more people you have working and paying their own bills, the more tax revenue that you'll have for people who go through rough times and need public assistance that Progressives speak so highly of, to help them out.

But the fewer people you have working, or not making enough money to support themselves, the smaller the economy will be and the less revenue that you'll have for people who aren't physically and mentally able to at least work full-time and able to support themselves. Which is why you need the largest workforce possible with the largest middle class possible. So you have the fewest people possible who are either unemployed, or undereducated and not able to get themselves a good job that will allow for them to be self-sufficient. And then you'll have more money to help people who truly need it.

Private enterprise and capitalism are great things and I'm big fans of them. But they can only be as successful as their workforce will allow for them to be and be as good as their workforce. You need a good infrastructure system, good education, good workers and a good and efficient regulatory state, for your economy to be as strong as possible. To have the largest middle class possible. As many people as possible who are doing very well and even able to put money away and enjoy the luxuries in life. And for the people who fall through the cracks of system, an insurance system to help them out. But have that population be as small as possible.

Associated Press: Warren Levinson: Occupy Wall Street: One Year Later

Source:FRS FreeState

Occupy Wall Street started off as a progressive socialist movement a year ago, that was pissed off at Wall Street and corporate America as a whole. And seeing them get bail outs while they saw the rest of the country as they put it get austerity and decided that they were "mad as Hell and weren't going to take it anymore". (Or something like that) It was a very focused and fairly disciplined movement, especially for Progressives and Socialists who aren't known for discipline or even believing in it. And thats how they were successful in its first few months. "This is what's bad, we have the people with us and we need to stop this". 

And then OWS could go about  fixing the problems, instead of making them worst and were successful in not only getting attention from the national media, but getting people behind them as well. Even Democrats not so much the leadership, but some Congressional Democrats in both the House and Senate who are so far to the Left as they are and also have a hard time seeing the center and perhaps center-left with a telescope, such as OWS. And they even managed to not only communicate what they believe is wrong with the country, as far as the economy, but were able to start to put together their own progressive/socialist agenda. 

That was about preserving social insurance programs, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But what they would do about the "too big to fail banks", breaking them up or nationalizing them. As well as things like universal higher education, protecting organize labor and debt forgiveness for students and other things. But now OWS seems to be about complaining about ever society ill that the country seems to be going through. Jump from one problem to another without any real focus or discipline and living up to one of the negative stereotypes that Socialists have. They've become like kids who when they get a new toy, they see something else that they want and now have lost all interest in their first toy. They've become like children. 

That's how Occupy Wall Street started out, but by the late spring and summer they had already lost whatever momentum they were able to build up from the fall and winter of 2011-12 and started looking more like rioters or anarchists and with all of the arrests they started piling up. They were like fireworks that are lighted on July Fourth, that burn out with in minutes. And started piling up arrests at their rallies and events. And once a movement gets to that point, its hard for Americans who unless they are die hard supporters of you, to take you seriously. "Why should I pay attention to them. They are just some whacked out fringe, why should I take them seriously". 

And because of this, the Democratic Leadership, has never really gotten behind them. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats understand that there's a certain responsibility to being part of a major political party. That you can't afford to look like you are part of a fringe movement, because you are supposed to be the adults in the room. This is one thing that separates Democrats from Republicans who go out of their way to appease religious and neoconservative Americans. Democrats leave their children home with a babysitter when they go out. Republicans take their children everywhere including fancy restaurants and public events.  

Right now in America again unless you are a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, they look like some whacked out Far-Left socialist party. That are champions of big government and high taxes, which hasn't played well in this country for a long time. And worst than that, OWS looks like anarchists people who are so out of their minds they aren't capable of having an adult conversation, which is why they are struggling to be taken seriously.Even fringe movements need ties and have a base with reality and how the world works, so they can be as successful as possible. Even if it comes off as stale or old school to their supporters. 

CBS News The Homosexuals (1967)

Source:The Daily Journal

The 1960s especially the late 1960s, was a very good decade for homosexual Americans. Because the country was becoming freer and more liberal as a country. We were becoming more free to express ourselves as a country, unlike the 1950s where the country was very conservative culturally. And where homosexuality was considered a sin, or a disease. We were sort of a big government statist country back then. Especially for a country that’s supposed to be a liberal democracy.

But the 1960s changed that with the Baby Boomers coming of age and Hippie Culture coming into our culture. Where people including gays were encouraged to be who they were and no longer hide who they were. That there was nothing wrong with being gay in public. That there was nothing wrong for men to be attracted to me and for women to be attracted to women. And for men to be feminine and for women to be masculine. That Americans gay, or Straight, should be who they are. Which of course pissed off religious and Neoconservatives in America who have this very narrow view of what it means to be an American. And that has nothing to do with being gay and today have to be expanded that to being that Islam is Un-American as well.

Freedom for homosexuals just expanded in the 1970s and 80s, where it became more acceptable and where you would see men wearing pink shirts in public. And women dressing butch in public and to the 1990s where we saw Gay Pride Parades. And that discriminating against homosexuals because of their sexuality was considered wrong. Just look at where the country was ten years ago on same-sex Marriage. Where the whole notion was considered some fringe idea, to by 2004 states like Hawaii and Massachusetts were passing same-sex marriage laws.

Vermont passed civil union Law in 2003-04, to today where roughly half the country, little more, or less supports the idea of same-sex marriage. Where even now the President and Vice President of the United States now support marriage equality. We’ve come thousands of miles in just the last few years when it comes to tolerance for homosexuals. I say all of this as a straight Liberal man who believes that all people have a right to tolerance and respect under law in this country. Until they lose that right by hurting other people. But as long as we are all good people, we should be treated as such, and not by who do we sleep with and are attracted to the opposite gender, or not. But instead we are treated by how we treat other people rather than what we do in our private lives.

Public Resource: Video: CBS News: President John F. Kennedy After Two Years

Source:The Daily Press

Jack Kennedy came to the White House in 1961 with a broad agenda that included civil rights for African-Americans, Federal aid to public education, health insurance for seniors and an economic plan to deal with an economy that was slowly coming out of recession from the late 1950s, that included a deep tax cut. And yet most of his domestic agenda stalled in Congress despite having large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. And spent most of the first two years dealing with foreign policy. With Cuba twice both involving Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and of course the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Kennedy, did have a foreign policy agenda as well and was a tough Liberal Cold Warrior that wanted to open discussions with Russia. But wasn’t prepared to be soft with them, but take them on. And spoke out for liberal democracy not only in America, but in Europe as well, but wasn’t looking for a war with the Soviet Union either. And in the middle of 1963, finally took a tough stand when it came to civil rights for African-Americans and liberal democracy for them. Who were being discriminated and beaten in the South with the violent beatings that were happening in Alabama and Mississippi.

We’ll never know how successful of a President that Jack Kennedy would’ve made, one of the tragedies of his assassination. But he had all the tools of becoming not just one of the best Liberal Democratic president’s we’ve ever had, but one of the best president’s we’ve ever had as well. Just by what he believed in, but also how he handled the issues that came his way. The Cuban Missile Crisis and finally taking on Civil Rights as well in 1963. The question is how effective he would’ve been how he been able to complete his first term. And he been reelected, he effective he would’ve been at getting his agenda through Congress. Something he wasn’t very successful at in his first two years.

President Kennedy, was very popular when he died I believed, because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and because he was very likable personally. Which are the advantages that President Obama has today. But wasn’t very good at making Congress go along with his agenda based on his personal appeal. Had President Kennedy completed his first term, he would’ve continued to work on the issues, that he ran on as President. Across the board tax cuts, what later became known as Medicare, Federal Aid to public education and civil rights. And then the question would’ve been how successful he would’ve been at pushing that agenda through Congress.

Liberty Pen: Harry Browne 2002: Maximizing Personal Freedom

Source:Real Life Journal

I love the message of maximize freedom as a Liberal. Because I believe people have the right to live their own lives. Again their own lives not trying to live other people’s lives for them. But that we should be able to live our own lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing. It’s the anti-statist, or Progressive, or Neoconservative message, because it says that it’s not government’s job to protect us from ourselves. But to inform the citizenry of what the consequences of our decisions are. And then its up to us as the people to make these decisions for ourselves.

Again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing. It doesn’t say that we have the right to hurt people, just the right to make our own decisions and then holds us accountable for our own decisions that we make as a country. Rather than government trying to live our lives for us. It’s the ultimate message of pro-choice, but it just doesn’t relate to abortion, but how we live our own personal lives. What we can do with our own money, rather than government trying to make these decisions for us. The message of personal freedom and responsibility. That the people aren’t prisoners and not the job of government to direct our lives for us.

John F. Kennedy: Liberal Party Speech (1960)

Source:FRS FreeState

If you really want to know what liberalism is and I mean real liberalism in its basic form, what it actually is, not what’s known as progressivism or what’s been called “modern liberalism”, which is really democratic socialism, a different philosophy from liberalism, then you should study Jack Kennedy. Because he lays it out very well, as a philosophy that’s based on individual freedom, civil liberties. And helping people who are off of their feet, get themselves on their feet. American Liberals aren’t the United States version of Social Democrats in Europe. Todays so-called American Progressives are the United States version of Social Democrats. Jack Kennedy understood what liberalism is. That it’s about freedom and that freedom is so important, that is has to be protected.

Which is why JFK was such an anti-Communist, because he believed communism and as well, was as anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-individual and anti-liberal. These are what real Liberals are, people who would be viewed as soft on communism or soft on statism in general, aren’t Liberals, but Socialists, or Statists. Jack Kennedy believed as a Liberal Democrat that freedom should be defended. And that part of that, not all of it, but part of that meant having a strong defense, but that a strong defense shouldn’t be the only tool that’s used to defend freedom. But something that we can and should use when we are under attack and something to use to prevent others from attacking us. And this is just liberalism as it relates to foreign policy.

Liberalism is also relevant as it related to the economy. Not to have some superstate that Senator Kennedy back in 1960, said that’s so big that it’s designed to take care of the people for themselves and protect Americans from themselves. But is there to do the things that people can’t do for themselves. Like national security and law enforcement, but also helping people who are down who can’t fend for themselves, give them an opportunity to get themselves back on their feet. And become productive in life. This is how liberalism is different from progressivism, democratic socialism, or libertarianism. Jack Kennedy as far as I’m concern at least, was the last Liberal Democrat nominated by a major political party for President until 1984 with Fritz Mondale and the 1988 with Mike Dukakis and with Bill Clinton in 1992.

LBJ in 1964, had liberal tendencies on civil rights and perhaps broader social issues and even foreign policy, but was more of. Again what’s called an FDR Progressive on economic policy. With the Great Society and so forth, same thing with Hubert Humphrey in 1968, George McGovern in 1972. Jimmy Carter, leaned left, but more of a centrist, or a Moderate Liberal. But Jack Kennedy was the real thing and has done as good of a job, at least from everything I seen. In defining liberalism for what it really is and not how its been stereotyped.

David Von Pein: Jack Paar Show: Robert F. Kennedy - March 13th, 1964

Source:The Daily Journal

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a few months after his brother President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Goes on NBC's the Jack Parr Show. I guess he wanted to get back to living a normal life, or as normal of a life that a public official can have in America and get out of the funk he was in from losing his brother and did it in a big way by going on Jack Parr. And trying to communicate to the world that he and his family were doing okay, or as well as they could be doing after seeing one of their family members assassinated. And Bobby Kennedy came back in a big way in 1964. RFK wanted to make his life worth serving again the only way he knew how outside of his family. By serving the public and being involved in public affairs. He was already Attorney General of the United States, but had other interests as well.

As Attorney General, RFK was influential in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. His speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, resigning from office right after that and running for U.S. Senate in New York. Where he wins there, partially thanks to President Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater with New York being one of those States. So Bobby Kennedy not only came back in 1964, but came back in a big public way that few other people would've been able to come back from after a tragedy. Like losing a sibling in the manner that he did. The Jack Paar Show, was perfect for RFK. Because Jack was a very funny man, but also up to date on current affairs and interested in them. And was Bobby Kennedy being a Kennedy with their famous wit and intelligence.

1964, was a very depressing and yet liberating year for Bob Kennedy. First, he was Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, but for a man he hated. President Lyndon Johnson, who was President Kennedy's Vice President. LBJ, not exactly best friends with RFK, but at least he let the Attorney General do his job. Unlike RFK who was always undermining any authority and responsibility that LBJ had as Vice President. But that is really a different discussion and perhaps debate, especially for RFK loyalists. RFK, didn't want to work for President Johnson and that is one reason why he decided to run for the Senate in 1964. And restore some freedom over his own personal life and career. And going on Jack Paar in early 1964, was the start of RFK returning to public life again.

Sugar Poultry: Video: Whose Line Is It Anyway, Chris Walken Doing The News

Source:The Daily Press

ABC use to have a show called Whose Line Is It Anyway, the American version of the BBC Whose Line show. And what it was five comedians including the host Drew Carey who would be given scenes and characters to play, but the comedians would have to act out the scenes with no script or lines. The comedians would have to act out the scenes off the top of their heads, almost completely spontaneously.

And they would do scenes like Hoe Down where they would have to do a song off the top of their heads, or Super Hero’s where each person would have this made up Super Hero with a name that no Super Hero, who is sane and sober at least, would have. And one comedian would start out with a name and as each comedian would enter the game, the comedian who came before would give the next comedian a name. So lets say Alcoholic Man would introduce lets say Mr. Clutz who would topple to the floor as soon as he’s introduced. And Mr. Clutz would do is act and then introduce the next person and say, “thank God you are here Scared Shitless or something like that.”

My favorite skit that they did is probably Weird Newscasters. Especially the two anchors and these two people would makeup the news literally on the spot. And would say something like, “our lead story tonight, 200 people reported missing or dead as a result of an attack by Killer Tomatoes.” And the second anchor with a weird character to play like a news anchor being played by race car drive whose had too much to drink or something. And he or she would say something like, “this just in alcoholism linked to drunk driving. Shocking I know.” And they would introduce the weatherman who farts every time he speaks or something like that. As well as a sportscaster who falls in love with every women he sees in the audience or something.

My favorite character on this show even though I don’t believe Chris Walken has ever actually physically been on this show before is Chris Walken. Because he’s a great comedian on the spot, who never needs a script to be funny, movies like American Sweethearts, True Romance and his appearances on Saturday Night Live are excellent examples of that. And Jeff Davis from Whose Line, does a great impression of him and that’s what makes this show great and how you tell great comedians from good or average comedians. How funny are they when they have to be and when they don’t have a script.

Paddy Irishman: Eulogy of Robert F. Kennedy (1968)

Source:The Daily Journal

Senator Ted Kennedy, gave the best line of the RFK Memorial. Where he quotes bis brother by saying that, “some people see things and wonder why, I dream things that never happen and wonder why not.” Which goes to the heart of Bobby Kennedy’s idealism. Bobby Kennedy, wasn’t a hopeless Utopian who saw things that were simply impossible happening and would put these dreams in simple terms. But what he would do is see problems that the country is facing and see us as a country the greatest and wealthiest country in the World. With the resources to solve a lot of the problems that we face, as solvable and that we can and should solve these problems.

Because we are simply too great a country not to confront these problems, especially as a developed nation with the largest economy in the world. It’s not that we don’t have enough resources to solve our problems, but that we simply don’t use the resources that we have to solve the problems that we face. That perhaps the problems that we have are part in due to the fact that we’ve simply misused some of the resources that we have as a country. And we would be better off instead destroying other countries in the name of defeating communism, that we would instead build our own country at home. Bobby Kennedy, loved America and wanted to create an America that worked for everyone. Where all Americans could live in freedom and not have to live in poverty, or under racial discrimination.

Shark Throwback: Video: NFL 1967, The Story of The New Orleans Saints

Source:The Daily Press 

The New Orleans Saints early on in its history looked like a division 2 minor league club of an NFL Franchise. They looked like a not ready for prime time operation, with an owner who had nothing to do with pro football before New Orleans. With a general manager who had just as little or as much pro football experience as his boss. With a head coach that literally came from the Minor Leagues, I believe from a franchise in Richmond or Norfolk, Virginia. Because they were so cheap and so minor league, they were awful for their first ten years or so.

The Saints weren’t even in playoff contention until 1978, when they were 7-9 and 8-8 in 78 and 79. The Saints are remembered for not even having a winning season in their first twenty seasons, 1967-86. When general manager Jim Finks and head coach Jim Mora came in 1986, owner Tom Benson a few years before that. Things started changing in New Orleans in the mid 1980s, Bum Phillips made them somewhat competitive in the early 1980s, after another 2-14 season in 1980. But they were finally putting something together in the late 70s and since these are the New Orleans Saints, they weren’t able to build on that. Going from 8-8 in 1979 to 2-14 in 1980.

Archie Manning of course the father of two Super Bowl champion quarterbacks in Peyton and Eli Manning, is probably the best quarterback in Saints history, at least before Drew Brees arrived in 2006. Played eleven seasons in New Orleans 1971-81 and was a Pro Bowler there. Never played on a winning team in New Orleans, got close a couple of times in the 1970s, but never played for a winner. And this franchise back then had their share of Pro Bowlers, like WR Danny Abramowicz, RB Chuck Muncie who would move on and have a good career with the San Diego Chargers.

They also had WR John Jefferson who again would move on and have a good career with the Washington Redskins. As well as WR John Gilliam who would move on and have a good career with the Minnesota Vikings. Notice where I’m going with this, they would draft good players and then trade them away. Except for Archie Manning because they didn’t want to pay them. One thing I don’t understand about the Saints of this era, is their fans their management is pretty easy to understand.

They were simply cheap and not willing to invest the resources to build a long-term winner that could compete in the National Football Conference. Even though they always had the fan base that would allow them to win in Southern Louisiana and Southwestern Mississippi and perhaps the State of Louisiana as a whole. But their fans have been very loyal to the Saints for this whole time and really love football.

My Footage: This is Adlai Stevenson

Source:The Daily Journal

Adlai Stevenson running on what would later be known as the Great Society in the LBJ Administration. He wanted to expand the safety net in America and perhaps even go further than the Great Society and social insurance and even create America's first welfare state. Where the Federal Government would become primarily responsible for taking care of the welfare and well-being of the people. Which is what the New-Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s wanted to create in America. But when Adlai ran for president in 1952 and 56, he was basically running on what would be called the Great Society. Government guaranteed health insurance for the elderly and the poor. And more Welfare for people who were struggling in America.

There wasn't ever any real shot of Adlai defeating a very popular Army General in Dwight Eisenhower who commanded allied forces in Europe and defeat General Eisenhower for president in 1952. Or much of an opportunity for Adlai to defeat a popular president in Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. What I believe was the real motivation for Adlai running for president in 1952 was to expand the progressive movement and to give Progressives real issues and policies to run on against then Vice President Richard Nixon in 1960. And in that case Adlai's 1956 presidential campaign was pretty successful. Because then Senator Jack Kennedy ran on those social insurance and economic issues when he ran for president in 1960 and defeated Vice President Nixon.

Reason Magazine: Nanny of The Month For August, 2012: Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius

Source:Real Life Journal

Actually, I don't agree with this Nanny of The Month show from Reason. I did agree with the Nanny of The Month's for June and July. Mayor Mike Bloomberg essentially trying to outlaw soft drinks in New York and the people in Massachusetts trying to outlaw cursing in public. Thats exactly what political nannies are, people who try to protect others from themselves. But all Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius was trying to do with her wellness campaign is preventive health care. Something we have to do as a country in order to bring down our health care costs.

What they are doing here is passing out funds from the Federal Government to encourage wellness campaigns. Not outlawing junk food, or junk drinks, but encouraging healthy dieting and exercise. Which is in our national interest, because it would bring down the health care costs for the country. Its not saying, "you have to eat and drink healthy and you have to exercise and if you don't, we'll lock you up in jail." Where you'll get less exercise and eat worse food, which is what we do in the War on Drugs, the definition of making problems worse. By finding a problem, not only not fixing it, but making it worse.

The lady who got fined for handing out free water during one of the hottest summers we've ever had, which we are still having in most of the country, is a much better example of a nanny than the preventive health care campaign. And I would bet the fine that lady is going to have to pay is as much as we would be paying in sales taxes had she bought that water in a store and thats what this fine is about. This big government here thinking they were cheated in losing sales tax revenue. Because the people who got the bottle water got it for free and didn't pay sales taxes on it.

It's Time For a Change: Hubert Humphrey 1968 Political TV Ad: What Has Richard Nixon Done For You?

Source:The Daily Journal

Hubert Humphrey running as the Washington insider in 1968. What Have You Done For me Lately? Which is a Janet Jackson song, but that could also be the title for this political commercial in 1968. Hubert Humphrey, was a U.S. Senator during the first half of the 1960s and is a big reason why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. By 1968, Richard Nixon was out of political office completely for almost eight years. His last job in government was as Vice President of the United States under President Dwight Eisenhower. And he was an effective Vice President and had real responsibility under President Eisenhower as his counselor and adviser on all issues. And chief political enforcer if not strategist. But by 1968 America even though it was moving right was still in the Progressive Era.

Dick Nixon, was out of office for most of the 1960s. When a lot of popular progressive legislation was passed. Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Fair Housing Law. Humphrey, either in the Senate, or as Vice President, had a role in all of this legislation that was passed in Congress that was signed by President Lyndon Johnson. And unless you were Barry Goldwater, or another Conservative Republican with a safe seat like in the West in Congress, you needed to show voters that you at the very least wouldn't try to repeal all of this legislation. Nixon at the very least wasn't quick to support all of these bills even though he did.

So what the Humphrey Campaign was trying to do with this commercial, was to say that Humphrey and other Progressive Democrats were responsible for all of the popular legislation from the New Deal and Great Society. While Dick Nixon was either on the sidelines or trying to defeat it. I don't know how effective this commercial was, but at the very least Humphrey has a very good case here. What Have You Done For Me Lately? Nixon didn't have an answer to that. He was almost a Washington outsider at this point even though her served in Congress for six years and was Vice President for eight. But in the 1960s he made a lot of money in the private sector and campaign for other Republicans while he was out of office.

HBO Sports: 1993 World Heavyweight Championship: Evander Holyfield vs Riddick Bowe-The Rematch

Source:Real Life Journal

I remember the Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy of the early and mid 1990s very well, because I got to see all three fights. I was a Junior in High School during the first fight in 1992, saw it on pay per view after I begged my dad to order the fight and we ended up watching at least part of it together. I've always had a lot of respect for Evander Holyfield, he's the ultimate of professionalism when it comes to not only Pro Boxing but Pro Sports as well, no other boxer has ever worked harder or. Had more dedication to his craft which generally speaking helped him a lot but it also hurt him.

Evander, ended up fighting too long and losing to guys and getting beat up by guys, that 5-10 years earlier he would've beaten fairly easily. And hopefully he hasn't paid a long term price for that when it comes to his health, we'll see later. But one problem I had with Evander, is that he seemed to have it a little too easy, he hadn't gotten much of a big challenge in the Heavyweight Division to this point. George Foreman gave him a pretty good fight in 1991 but Evander won most of those rounds and I wanted to see someone who not only gave Evander a big test but could actually beat him and thats where Riddick Bowe came in.

Evander Holyfield wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1990 by beating an overweight and overconfident James Douglas. Who probably thought way too much of himself after whipping and knocking out Mike Tyson for the Heavyweight Championship in January, 1990 in Japan. And before Evander fought Riddick Bowe, he defended his title successfully twice against two boxers who were once. Great but at this point of their careers were in the early forties, in George Forman and Larry Holmes. The super fight in the Heavyweight Division of the 1990s, was suppose to be Evander vs Mike Tyson.

But of course with Iron Mike's rape case, that wasn't going to happen. Again this is where Riddick Bowe comes in, after coming off the 1988 Olympics where he didn't do as well as perhaps he should've, he was looking for a big challenge. And a chance to prove himself and why not fight for the World Heavyweight Championship and win it to accomplish it. The Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy was great because you have two great heavyweights at the prime of their careers. Probably the best two heavyweights of the 1990s, who both had a lot of respect for each other, who both knew that they had to be their best to beat the best, who was their opponent. Thats how they both saw these fights and why these fights worked out the way they did, two great fighters both bringing their A Games to these fights.