Tuesday, June 30, 2015

TIME: U.S. Senator Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of The Marriage Business Altogether

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Senator Paul on this, as far as government getting out of marriage, at least as far as deciding who and who can’t get married in the United States. If this were always the case, or at least in the last 10-15 years, we wouldn’t see all of those homophobic same-sex marriage bans all across the country. And we wouldn’t need states passing laws and ballot measures legalizing same-sex marriage in their state, because it would already be legal in their state.

When government puts people in different classes and says class a, should be treated better than class b, even though class a has no special considerations under the law that makes them more worthy than class b, or any other class, they’re violating the U.S. Constitution under the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause. Why, because they would be giving one class of Americans special rights and treatment over another. And just because they prefer that class of people over another one. Gays, have the right to get married to their willing partners in America, just as much as straights do, just because they’re American and of age. Which is all that they need.

So that’s where I disagree with Senator Paul here. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t redefine anything here. Pre-2003 or so, there wasn’t any official government position of marriage. And sure, the Religious-Right can up until the last ten years or so say marriage was always between a man and a women. But that wasn’t government law. Just how the society conducted itself. 20-30, years ago, gays were still in the closet. They were just trying to survive in a world where they were outsiders. And they were worried about if they were going to get fired if their sexuality was discovered, or would they lose their home. Would they lose their straight friends, would their family disown them. Not if they could marry their girlfriend or boyfriend.

And Senator Paul, can make the Chief Justice John Roberts argument that this Supreme Court decision hurts American democracy and our democratic principles all they want to. But it’s not the Left that is constantly reminding Americans that we live in a republic, not a democracy. The Right does that and this is an example where our system and form of government can hurt their political goals. We live in a Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We have basic fundamental human and individual, as well as constitutional rights, simply as Americans, that we can’t lose at the ballot box. Gays, aren’t getting special treatment under the law with this Supreme Court decision. Just their basic fundamental human, individual and constitutional rights as American citizens.

Hail To The Redskins For Life: Phillip Hughes: Lets Get Redskins Legend Joe Jacoby in The Pro Football Hall of Fame

Source:The New Democrat

If you look at the Redskins of the 1980s and early 1990s, great teams with their share of great players, but not teams that had Hall of Fame players at every position. These were really good, if not great teams, that won three Super Bowls and four Conference Championships and played in five Conference Final’s, from 1982-91. You have to have great players to do that and the Redskins did in their leadership. But similar to the Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, Miami Dolphins of the 1970s, New England Patriots of the 2000s, they had some great players, but with a lot of very good players behind their stars. And great coaches on both sides of the ball.

Offensive tackle Joe Jacoby, was one of the Redskins great players. If you look at how the Redskins dominated the 1982 NFC Playoffs and then won that Super Bowl and manhandled the Dolphins up front on both sides of the ball, especially in the second half, Joe Jacoby, was dominating in that game and leading those charges. But go to the NFC Championship, before the Super Bowl and how the Redskins OL dominated Ed Jones and Randy White and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys defensive line, Big Jac, was consistently clearing his man out-of-the-way. And he and offensive guard Russ Grimm, who is already in the Hall of Fame, were leading those charges in that game. John Riggins and The Hogs, ran the ball down the throat of the Cowboys defense in that game.

Go to Super Bowl 22 against the Denver Broncos, again Timmy Smith, great game running the ball and Doug Williams with a career game throwing the ball. But the Broncos defense in a lot of those plays were barely in the picture, because Big Jac and The Hogs were consistently clearing them out-of-the-way. And opening up huge holes for Tim Smith and giving Doug Williams, five minutes each play to decide who to throw the ball to. And the 1991 Hogs, might be the Redskins best offensive line of all-time. I mean, when you’re towards the top of the league in scoring, passing and running and your quarterback is only sacked eight times all year, its hard to argue with that. Joe Jacoby, now playing guard for the Redskins next to Jim Lachey, was a big part of that as well.

Joe Jacoby, is one of the leaders of a team that wins two Super Bowls and three conference championships in the 1980s and is on the 1980s NFL All Decade team and plays in four Pro Bowls and arguably the anchor of the best offensive line of at least the 1980s. If that is not evidence that this great big offensive tackle, one of the first great big OT in the NFL, should be in the Hall of Fame, then a lot of great o-lineman, who are already in the Hall of Fame, perhaps shouldn’t be there. The Hall of Fame, was late on Art Monk, perhaps one of the top five all around receivers of all-time. They were late on Russ Grimm, perhaps the best guard of his era, who could also play tackle and center. They’re even later on Joe Jacoby, but his time will come, if not next year, certainly soon after that. Too great of a player to leave out.

Heritage Foundation: Diana West: American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character

Source:The New Democrat

Just to point out and after you see this, you’ll have an idea where Diana West is coming from. Diana West, is a Birther. She doesn’t believe Barack Obama, despite being born in Hawaii, with a Hawaii birth certificate to prove that, from 1961 when he was born, she believes that President Obama is not even an American citizen, yet was born in the United States. But lets say that water is dry and fire is cold just for a minute and that Barack wasn’t born in America. His mother was and was an American citizen her whole life. So anyone who is actually interested in facts, case closed on the legitimacy of Barack Obama as President of the United States. So why Heritage would host anyone like this, at least as it relates to serious topics, is beyond me. And gives me less reason to even respect them.

So, you got a Birther, talking about how Communists penetrated the U.S. Government in the 1940s and 1950s and took over American colleges. And that is why we has the emergence of the New-Left in the 1960s and had a socialist movement then, that didn’t like the America military, American establishment, American economic system. And wanted to take down all of these things to establish some type of socialist government in America. And this is coming from a Birther, so if you bother to look at Diana West’s speech and even browse through her book, even at an airport when you have hours to kill, keep all of this mind. Look and examine everything that she says to see if anything that she’s saying is even worth taking seriously.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Emily Goldstein: 'Yes, Diversity is About Getting Rid of White People & That’s a Good Thing'

Source:Emily Goldstein- Far-Left garbage spiller.

Source:The New Democrat 

“In “Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People (And That’s A Good Thing)” the author Emily Goldstein (who is either a master troll or incredibly ignorant — but probably a troll) makes an enthusiastic case for the end of white people.

Despite the massive online outrage over the article, Thought Catalog has left the article up, simply putting a warning before access. The site does have editors, so clearly someone thought it was acceptable to publish.

But it’s actually a hilarious article if you take it either as a joke or simply written by an idiot.

“Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world,” Goldstein writes. “Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism.”

Someone tell Tibetans, Muslims in Myanmar, and Muslims in South Sudan that all their ethnic oppression would end if there weren’t any damn white people.

The author is also not aware of world demographics, as made clear by the statement “the world belongs to the minorities now” — as if white people are the majority race of the world.

“But other races are not as evil as whites are, and it’s important to remember that,” she writes. “The world belongs to minorities now, and they will make a much better, more peaceful world with what they’re given. Only when white people have ceased to exist will a peaceful and progressive society — free of racism and hatred — be possible.”

She also believes that white people are the only ones who are homophobic.

“When white people die out, so will racism, sexism, queerphobia, and all other forms of oppression.”

Yep, Ugandan gays will have nothing to fear after the imminent white genocide.

Goldtsein perhaps jumps the shark and reveals her true troll identity when she starts arguing for long prison sentences for “complaining whites.”

“Not to mention, why should whites receive any kind of benefits when the ultimate goal is to get rid of whites altogether? Finally, laws against hate speech will serve to prevent whites from complaining about this, as any white person who complains will be arrested, given a long prison sentence, and made an example of for the rest of the remaining white population.”

This is so obviously a troll…which I respect. Game recognize game. The piece has more than 1,700 comments, and Thought Catalog is reaping the reward of all the juicy rage clicks.”

“Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People” 

Source:Vir M- Emily Goldstein, can’t make the: “I didn’t say that defense.”

From Vir M

Not to even sound like I’m standing up for racists on the Far-Right, or Nationalists and people in the Tea Party and even Center-Right Conservatives, who aren’t racist in any way, because I disagree with the Far-Right as much if not more than I disagree with the Far-Left, but when people on the Right talk about leftist fascism and leftist racism, this is why.

This piece by, Emily Goldstein and Robert Lindsay is ( not even sure that person exists ) is all the fuel that the Right, Center and Far, need to say: “How about leftist racism, violence and bigotry?” Well, here it is when you argue that eliminating Caucasians from the world.

And not only that, if calling for mass-murder and genocide of an entire race of people is not bad enough, but not to offer any real evidence of why that would be a good thing. Which puts you in the same camp as an Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, or Saddam Hussein. And if you don’t like being in the same league with evil men like, then don’t join that league by publishing such hateful garbage. (And I’m being nice with that)

As someone who is not a hateful person, but Peter Schiff when he commented on Michael Moore’s statement a couple of years ago saying that: “Caucasian-Americans buy guns, because they’re afraid of African-Americans”, asked the question, “can you be racist against your own race?” Which might sound strange and it’s rare, but it does happen. It’s just that most people are smart enough not fall for that.

If someone believes their race is inferior to every other race and if you’re on the New-Left and Far-Left, depending on how hateful and warped you are, you might believe the Caucasian is inferior to every race in the world and you believe your race is essentially made up of bad, evil, inferior, hateful people, that would make you a racist against your own race. You would be guilty of committing a self-inflicted wound against yourself and your people. (So to speak) Who needs enemies with friends like that?

Thats the level of stupidity that America has to deal with. Racists on the Far-Right like Dylann Roof, who murders people in church simply because he doesn’t like their complexion. To racists on the Far-Left, calling for the death of Caucasians. And saying that would be a good thing.

As far as Robert Lindsay saying that Caucasians, representing the sole source, or major source of evil in the world: I guess he’s not familiar with the People’s Republic of China. That still locks up people for simply disagreeing with the Communist Government. Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who murdered people in his own country because they were from a different ethnicity. And I could add several African dictators to that. Slavery, is still legal in parts of Africa.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Talk about genocide and they fund anti-semitic groups who still attack Jews in Israel, simply because they’re Jewish. How about North Korea and the Communist Government starving their own people. Sending them to work camps and making slaves out of them. I already mentioned Saddam Hussein in Iraq and his murders of Kurdish-Iraqis.

Racism, is racism whether it comes from the Right, or Left. And just because someone might let it slide, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just means someone didn’t bother to mention it, or ignored it, perhaps for partisan political reasons. And because of our liberal First Amendment, extremists, Far-Left and Far-Right have a very liberal amount of freedom of speech. And that even covers racism, just as long as they aren’t calling for violence even because of their racist beliefs. And because of that, people who aren’t warped, who have at east one foot on the ground and a level of intelligence and sanity, I at least believe have a responsibility to call out the racists for what they are exactly.

Liberty Pen: Charles Murray: Who Killed The Constitution?

Source:The New Democrat

Who Killed The Constitution? Interesting question, if only the Constitution were itself dead. I think Libertarians get themselves in trouble when they talk about social welfare legislation as being unconstitutional, when you have Federal court decisions going back eighty years saying that these programs are constitutional. And for good reasons as well, under the Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause. Instead Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians, would be better off simply arguing the merits of these programs. “Should they even exist in the first place. If not, how you get rid of them. Since we might be stuck with them, would we be better off if they were run at the state level?” Something Charles Murray, has suggested. Instead of trying to make the case that the New Deal and Great Society are unconstitutional, when 7-8 out 10 Americans disagree with you.

As far as the Constitution, I believe it has been weaken. At least since the so-called War on Terror was launched in 2001. And we’re technically still fighting it today, with the Patriot Act and everything else. But the First Amendment, our Freedom of Speech and Religion, are still very strong. Our Second Amendment, when was the last time a major gun control law was passed and held up the U.S. Supreme Court? Equal Protection Clause, with same-sex marriage becoming the law of the land and other anti-gay laws being struck down. The Fourth Amendment, for anyone Left and Right interested in the Right to Privacy and believes in personal freedom in general, has taken a big hit under the War on Terror. And Congress, not doing their jobs and holding the Executive accountable when it comes to declaring war. But that’s Congress not doing their jobs and their people not holding them accountable.

The Constitution, has certainly been weaken, the last fifteen years, or so. And both the Bush and Obama administration’s have taken advantage of that. But Charles Murray, isn’t able to write his book about the Constitution and I’m not blogging stuff that goes against the Obama Administration, without the First Amendment. As well as others, because we would be thrown in jail, or at the very least held for questioning, for suspicion of being enemies of the state, or something. For printing material that goes against current government policy. The Constitution, is a great and beautiful thing that grants along with the Bill of Rights all of our individual freedom, both personal and economic. And when the government follows the Constitution, we tend to get good government. But even when they don’t, the Constitution is still there protecting our freedom. From intrusions of big government.

Secular Talk: Ann Coulter: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote

Source:The New Democrat

Just when think Ann Coulter can’t be any meaner, more hateful, ignorant and funnier at her own expense, she comes out in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I’ve always argued that Neoconservatives, want to take America back to pre-New Deal days. But in Ann Coulter’s case, she was would take America back before the 1920s, before women had the right to vote in America. The host of whatever the hell this guy on YouTube does, who I generally see as a loudmouth asshole and jackass and if you watch him on YouTube, you would see why, actually makes a good point here. About the tax issue, that if you don’t pay taxes, you shouldn’t vote, according to Ann Coulter. Well, that would devastate the Republican Party.

If only income taxpayers and Americans who pay more in taxes than they actually receive in benefits could vote, we’re not talking about Washington, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, all big cities with large Democratic populations, who would lose their right to vote. These are all economically prosperous areas of the country. The areas that would get devastated as far as no longer being able to vote are the rural Bible Belt areas. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, rural Georgia, South Carolina, North Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Kansas, to use as examples. Some of the poorest states and areas of the country. That couldn’t live right now without their Food Assistance and Welfare benefits. Republican legislatures and governors, could gerrymander all they want. But their people wouldn’t be able to vote, because they don’t pay income taxes.

When you just make your political arguments and statements, especially against the other party based on stereotypes and talking points and especially racial and ethnic stereotypes and you don’t bother to look at the actual data and facts, you can get yourself in a lot of political trouble and shoot your toes off. Shoot yourself in the leg when you’re just trying to put your gun back in your holster, similar to Al Bundy, if you’re familiar with Married With Children. Because you’re not paying attention to what you’re doing. Yes, women tend to vote for Democrats, but those women also tend to be well-educated and economically successful. And they vote Democratic, because they believe Democrats better represent their interests. You prevent poor Americans from voting and you devastate a big chunk of the GOP that Republicans have to have. And Ann Coulter, doesn’t seem to be smart enough to understand that.

The New Republic: Andrew Sullivan: Here Comes The Groom

Just to be perfectly clear, conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, wrote this piece in the formerly liberal The New Republic, back in 1989, of all places. And the New The New Republic, (ha ha) reposted his piece about same-sex marriage last Friday. I once heard Sullivan on a panel talk show, I think on PBS, or maybe CNN, say that he opposed same-sex marriage, because of how straights have ruined marriage and hurt it so badly. With half of all American straight marriages ending in divorce and all the adultery that goes on in marriage. Kids, growing up in single-parent households, or being shipped from their father and mother back and forth. Perhaps only seeing their father on weekends and holidays, because their parents are divorced. And I’m not sure how Sullivan currently feels about same-sex marriage.

As far as the conservative case for gay marriage. I agree with Andrew Sullivan and I think he makes an excellent conservative case for it. But for me even as a Liberal talking about Conservatives and conservatism, it depends on what you mean by conservatism. Do you combine both political conservatism, which has more of a federalist conservative libertarian bent to it and is more constitutionally based. With religious or cultural conservatism, that takes us back to a time that Christian Conservatives and Neoconservatives see as an American Utopia, what they view as Traditional America. Where things that are considered mainstream and even legal today and homosexuality would just be one example of, would’ve been unacceptable and even illegal back in the 1950s and 1940s.

Or do you separate political conservatism, classical conservatism, conservative libertarianism even, with religious or cultural conservatism. I mean, are Barry Goldwater, who is Mr. Conservative and Phyllis Schlafly, who is Miss American Traditionalist, both Conservatives, or do they come from different political camps on the right. Are Rand Paul, perhaps the modern Mr. Conservative and Mike Huckabee, perhaps the hero of today’s Christian-Right, both Conservatives, even though ideologically they look and talk very differently and have very different views when it comes to their politics. And social issues might just be an example of that.

Does conservatism, mean conserving the growth of government and even shrinking it when it becomes big, so it doesn’t threaten our economic, or personal freedoms and doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution, as well as conserving freedom both economic and personal? Or to go back to Phyllis Schlafly, doesn’t conservatism mean conserving the 1950s and taking America back to that point, or perhaps even the 1920s pre-New Deal and saying through government force, “this is what America is and what it means to be an American. And people who move away from this way of life and lifestyle, are Un-American and perhaps should even be in jail.”

Again I’m a Liberal and it would be easy for me to lump all Conservatives and anyone on the Right into one big camp of traditionalists and neanderthals and say that conservatism, is really the big government ideology in America. Because they want to force their way of life through government force on the rest of America. But that wouldn’t be accurate of me and it would even be dishonest. I go with the Barry Goldwater/Rand Paul wing as far as who I see as the Conservatives in America. And say the Conservative case of same-sex marriage, is that marriage is about two people who are in love, in most cases and want to be legal romantic partners with each other for the rest of their lives. Or at least give it their best shot. And that marriage just like domestic partnerships, should be a civil issue between consenting adults. Not for government to decide.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Muir Maiden: Peyton Place (1957) Life is Not So Swell in Pleasantville

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t know any other movie that perfectly represents its time and is better timed and has a better plot than Peyton Place. I mean think about, think about what Peyton Place is about and when it comes out and when it takes place. In small town New England, where everyone looks the same, talks the same and acts the same, lives the same way. Or at least that is how it looks on the outside. Peyton Place, comes out in 1957, a time where mom stayed at home and dad worked. Where divorce, or single parenthood were considered sins. Where African-Americans, were considered servants of Caucasian families, especially Anglo-Saxon families. Where sex before marriage and even the talk of sex and how people being physically attracted to each other pre-marriage were considered sins.

Peyton Place and the 1940s, as well as 1950s America, perhaps especially in New England, are considered the Utopia of the Christian-Right and what I at least call the Traditional Values Coalition of America. And yet this is all just a fa├žade. Peyton Place, is a movie where a single mother is raising her daughter. Her daughter’s father, dies early on, but she’s never actually married to him. Not only that, but this women played by the great Lana Turner, has an unplanned pregnancy with a married man. Again, adultery and especially adulterous sex, would be considered sins back then and in this community. And yet Constance MacKenzie, played by Lana, tries to come off as this better than now above it all person. Expressing the traditional values of Traditional America. Even though she’s lived a separate life where she expressed her true feelings.

Peyton Place, looks like a small town paradise in New England, on the outside. With good schools, good places to eat. Very friendly intelligent good people, things to do. And yet this is a town with a lot of the problems of a big American Northeastern or Midwestern city. Like Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, to use as examples. Where women have kids with men who are married to other women and without marrying the father of their baby and where the father doesn’t have much of a presence in their baby’s life. Where a girl, played by Hope Lange, is raped by her stepfather, played by Arthur Kennedy. And when her stepfather attacks her again, she kills him and get charged with the murder of her stepfather. Because no one believes that she was simply defending herself.

Peyton Place, is also a movie, where a women played by Lana Turner, learns to open up, socialize and even love again. From the principle of her daughter’s high school, played by Lee Phillips. Who teaches her that there’s nothing wrong with two people openly showing their affection with each other in public. Even in Peyton Place. And is also a movie where abortion, again in a movie that came out in 1957, but took place even further back in 1941, thirty years before abortion even became legal in America, where a doctor, played by Lloyd Nolan, performs the abortion on Selena Cross, played by Hope Lange. Because she was a teenager, whose stepfather is the father of her baby.

To say that Peyton Place was ahead of its time as far as the issues that it talked about, would be like saying the Empire State Building in New York, is a big tall building. This movie was a solid ten-years ahead of its time. That showed that 1950s and 1940s America, wasn’t all that pleasant and certainly not perfect after all. That they dealt with the same issues back then as Modern America deals with today. Only they weren’t as public and the attitudes about these so-called alternative activities and lifestyles, were kept in the closet and hidden. Kept outside of mainstream America. And it is a very good look inside a time that wasn’t as innocent as its been advertised.

Mysteries & Scandals: Marilyn Monroe

I’ve seen several documentaries this month alone about Marilyn Monroe and her life. Because I’m very interested in her and was looking for new material that I could blog about Marilyn’s life. And in every show except for this one, they all suggested that Marilyn died from the wrong dosage of pills and then combined those pills with alcohol and you have the deadly combination which is what killed her. The idea that Jack or Bobby Kennedy killed Marilyn, is stupid. Perhaps not as stupid as the idea that Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordered the hit of President Kennedy, but it’s still pretty stupid.

Marilyn Monroe, was certainly unhappy. You don’t drink and take as much medication as she did in the last few years of her life, if you’re mentally healthy. But suicide, especially considering everything else she had going for her, is a little hard to buy. She had a lot of people around her and if this was on her mind, someone would’ve probably picked up on that and hopefully would’ve done something about it. Peter Lawford, who was sort of a personal consultant and assistant to President John F. Kennedy, if he’s involved in this, it would’ve come out. Simply because of his relationship with the Kennedy’s and Marilyn Monroe.

Marilyn Monroe, was drunk the night she died and yet felt the need to have more sleeping pills. And not that I know this from personal experience, but when you’re drunk especially lets say, shit-faced drunk, you’re pretty stupid, or at the very least you act very stupid and do a lot of stupid things. Simply because you’re not in control of yourself and do things that you wouldn’t normally do. Some people say that drunkenness, makes honest people out of everyone. Marilyn, didn’t know what she was doing on the last night of her life. Because she was drunk and as a result, she took the wrong pill combination and then add all the drinking and that is what killed her.

Friday, June 26, 2015

You Hot News: Video: President Obama Delivers Eulogy at Charleston Shooting Funeral of Clementa Pinckney

I can’t imagine anything worst than being murdered in a house of worship. A place, that is supposed to be a house of peace. I mean, if you’re not safe in a church in America, where would you be safe? And yet this is where these members of the Charleston AME Church were murdered. And why, because of the so-called accused murderer Dylann Roof, hated African-American people? His hatred was so strong, his faith in people was so weak, that he murdered people in church simply because they were members of a different race and had a different complexion. These murders, were simply pure evil. Perhaps something that only an Adolph Hitler and his followers would approve of.

I believe that is what President Obama was hitting on here. Yes, remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney and the fact that he was murdered just perhaps because he was an African-American Reverend. But also acknowledging why everyone was there in the first place. Why they were eulogizing a man of 41 years. When I think of how young Reverend Pinckney was when he was murdered and then add the fact that he was murdered in his church and for no other reasons than the color of his skin, it makes me really angry and wanting to see his murderer get similar treatment. But just not in a peaceful place like a church. But in some hell hole underground, where only Devils are welcomed and expected to attend.

South Carolina, I’m sure has its wonderful qualities and has aspects that make it a great place to live. And I believe Charleston is an example of that, but it has a level of hatred and bigotry that needs to be overcome. So it becomes that state where all Americans who are good productive people are welcome. And it doesn’t become a state where people aren’t even safe in church simply because of their race and complexion. President Obama, didn’t speak to that and to South Carolina as a whole and I’m just adding this myself. But no American should have to even contemplate being murdered in a house of worship. Especially just because of their race and complexion. And gunned down in the prime of their life.

Fox News: Video: Franklin Graham: Christians Should Prepare For Persecution After Gay Marriage Ruling'

Source:The New Democrat

Well in the World of Stupid! I know, that’s a huge world in America, but in this part of the World of Stupid, Reverend Franklin Graham, who otherwise might be a swell guy and represents the so-called Southern charm and hospitality very well and is a good Christian man, saying that, “Christians should prepare for persecution after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.” You don’t have to take my word for it. Fox News just showed what the good Reverend just said. And I know what you might be thinking. Fox News reports just as much news as The Onion, well maybe less. But here’s the video from Fox News showing what Reverend Graham just said. So you can see and hear for yourself.

As for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ruling in this case. He ruled that his decision was based on the fundamental right to marry. And I would add America, that Americans 18, or over have the fundamental right to marry. It’s not government’s decision, or authority to decide who can get married in America. The fact that gay Americans are exactly that and adults, is all they need, as well as a partner that has agreed to marry them, in order to get married in America. It’s the class argument that I’ve made since I’ve blogged about this issue. That government can’t create two separate classes of Americans, with one being treated better, or worst under law than the other. And this case, the issue being marriage.

Same-sex marriage in America, along with the belief in civil liberties and privacy, as well as marijuana legalization and perhaps just after that prostitution, are just examples of where America is going. Personal freedom, is just as important to Americans as economic freedom. And our tradition of personal liberties and freedom, go hand in hand with our strong beliefs in economic freedom. Not wanting to be taxed very high and having so much power being centralized in one governmental authority. With that authority having so much responsibility for both our personal and economic well-being. And the Republican Party needs to figure this out, if they want to be competitive in the future.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Jared Bernstein: The Supreme Court and ObamaCare: Somehow Commonsense Prevailed

Source:The New Democrat

Jared Bernstein, progressive economist from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a very good pice about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. He talks about Chief Justice John Roberts and why he ruled in favor of Burwell, in King V Burwell. U.S. Secretary Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Burwell, being the Obama Administration in King V Burwell. Bernstein, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices who ruled in favor, 6-3 decision by the way, ruled in favor of the ACA and the subsidies, based on Congressional intent.

Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it was based on three parts.

Better rules and regulations for how private health insurance is given in America. Including protections for patients, so they don’t lose their health insurance simply, because they actually need to use it. Or have a pre-existing condition. Just a couple of examples.

The individual mandate. So everyone is in the system and is covered and paying for their costs of their health care. And not passing their costs onto others. And making health insurance more expensive for everyone involved.

And the last one and perhaps the most important, because it goes to expanding health insurance and health care in America. The tax credits for lower middle-income working class Americans. People who aren’t technically poor and who are working, but can’t afford private health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Chief Justice, arguing that Congress didn’t intend to leave the tax credits up to the states that have a health care exchange, or have the Feds handle it. He said that under the ACA, the Feds can give out tax credits to people who don’t live in state with a health insurance exchange. Chief Justice Roberts, wasn’t saying he supports the law, but was simply ruling on the intent of the law and how it was written. And the ACA, clearly tries to expand health insurance in America. Which is what the tax credits are about and why the Feds fund them.

Reason Magazine: Shikha Dalmia: SCOTUS Fuctus On ObamaCare

Anyone interested, or concern about the title of this piece, especially the first part. Apparently Shikha Dalmia, had a bad day over at Reason today and perhaps doesn’t control, or express her anger very well. For the life of me, I can’t understand what she has to be upset about. Ha, ha. Maybe she’ll smoke a joint, or something and calm her nerves.

I was just reading Chief Justice John Roberts decision. And he says the ACA has a provision where if states don’t set up their own health care exchanges for health insurance subsidies, the Federal Government will step in and provide people with those tax credits. That is the ballgame in this case. King, in King V Burwell, argued and perhaps not very well, considering they lost 6-3 and lost two Republican votes, that if a state, does not decide to set up a health care exchange, than the people in those states aren’t eligible for the tax credits.

So that’s King V Burwell. King, arguing that the states have to set up their own exchanges for the people in those states to be eligible for the tax credit. Burwell, arguing that the Federal Government can step in and makeup for a state not doing their own exchange. With the Chief Justice, a Republican and Republican appointee, who’ve I disagree with on many occasions, saying the ACA, already has a provision giving the Feds the ability to provide tax credits for health insurance. Even for people who live in states without health insurance exchanges.

AEI: James Pethokoukis: Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare Subsidies

With the U.S. Supreme Court making the right decision in ruling in favor of the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, (at least in my view), the Republican Party, at least in Congress will now have an opportunity to do something positive when it comes to health care reform in America. They know now that repealing the law either through Congress, or through the Supreme Court, is not happening at least in this Congress and while Barack Obama is still President. At least their leadership in the House and Senate knows that. Whether their Tea Party members in and outside of Congress understand that, or not, probably not likely. But their leaders know this.

Now, Congressional Republicans will have the opportunity, even though they’ve had it all along, to work with Congressional Democrats in both chambers, to improve a law that they know is here to stay. At least until there’s another Republican President and Congress. Waiting for that as more Americans benefit from the ACA and get health insurance and can now afford it, will make repeal even more difficult. Without costing them seats in Congress. But even Democrats have problems with the law, which gives Republicans an opportunity to work with them when it comes to the medical device tax and small business’s covering their employees. As well as add things to the law the Republicans at least use to like. Like expanding health savings accounts for moderate and low-income workers. And giving low-income workers a private option when it comes to Medicaid.

The fact is, Republicans both in the House and Senate, haven’t offered a plan, other than John Boehner’s substitute to the ACA, when he was still House Minority Leader back in 2009, which only covered seven-million people according to the Congressional Budget Office, because they don’t have a plan. They prefer the old system, but perhaps don’t want to admit it. They don’t have a problem with health insurers dropping patients simply because they need health insurance, get sick, or have a pre-existing condition. They simply call that capitalism and the free market. They don’t believe taxpayers should help cover the health insurance of people who make too much money for Medicaid, but can’t afford private health insurance. Which is what the ACA subsidies are about. Which is why I at least believe they still don’t have an alternative to the ACA and probably won’t offer one anytime soon.

Associated Press: Mark Sherman: Explaining Supreme Court’s Health Care Ruling

Source:The New Democrat

What I get from Mark Sherman, is that the challenge to the Affordable Care Act in King V Burwell, is that the challengers were saying that the subsidizes through the health care exchanges in the ACA are unconstitutional, because they are supposed to come through state exchanges. But as we all know at least the people who’ve been following the ACA, is that not every state has set up their own exchange. Republicans, control something like 30-50 governorships and maybe a couple of those states have their own exchange. And Democrats, have around 20 governorships, but not every Democratic state has a Democratically controlled governorship and legislature.

So if the challengers were right, the subsidies shouldn’t be available in states that don’t already have their own health care exchange. Even though the subsidies come from the Federal Government and are available on HealthCare.Gov. What Chief Justice John Roberts said, was that the purpose of the ACA is to expand health insurance in America. Not decrease it and that is what Congress intended in the law. Not to decrease health insurance. And to improve and expand the health insurance market in the country, not to ruin it and establish a Federally run health insurance system in the country. The Chief Justice, was ruling on the intent of the law.

Whatever you think of the ACA and I by in large support it, even though I would’ve gone further and added a public option and done more with preventive health care, the law is here to stay. For Republicans to get rid of the law, they’re going to have to win the White House back and retain control of Congress at the same time. And to do that, they’re going to have to win back young voters and Latinos. And the way they talk about immigration and these so-called voter ID laws, good luck to them on that. And hopefully Congressional Republicans will listen less to their Tea Party and Far-Right base and instead work with Congressional Democrats and President Obama. On ways to improve health care in America. Instead of trying to repeal a law that they don’t have the votes, or the President to support. But don’t go underwater hoping that will happen. Don’t hold your breath.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle: Should Prostitution be Legal?

Source:The New Democrat

I have a prediction. Prostitution, will become the next big freedom of choice and personal freedom issue in America. We already have a consensus on same-sex marriage, homosexuality and sexuality in general. As far as believing that this should be up to individual Americans to choose whether how they conduct themselves in their personal lives. And that gay marriage doesn’t affect straight marriage. We have a building consensus on marijuana, especially with young Americans who believe marijuana should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. Prostitution, will be next, at least with young Americans and Americans in general who are tired of seeing their high taxes go to funding the prison industrial complex.

Prostitution, like most personal freedom and personal choice issues, comes down to what should government be doing and how much choice and freedom should the individual have over their own lives. Big government statists on the Right and Left will say, “prostitution is dangerous. People get hurt, including the prostitutes with their pimps and everything else. It should always be illegal.” When you make something illegal, you at the very least are saying this is wrong. It should go away and should never be practiced. But what is the oldest profession in the world? Prostitution of course and its illegal in most of the United States. Just because you make something illegal, doesn’t mean it goes away. It just means that some people will be held criminally liable for doing it and getting caught.

So now that we know that, just because you make something that it is dangerous illegal, that doesn’t mean it won’t go away. The question is what should be done about it. And I’m glad to hear a self-described Libertarian like Andrew Klavan actually speak in favor of government regulation. Which segues into my next point. You legalize, regulate and tax prostitution, it still won’t go away. But that’s not my point. The idea is to acknowledge the obvious prostitution is here to stay. So knowing that again what should be done about it. And go to making it as safe as possible.

Registering prostitutes and their boss’s, whether that person is still called a pimp or not. But forcing them to get licensed to work at, manage, or own a prostitution business.

Forcing prostitutes to get medically checked on a regular basis. And requiring them to be healthy in order to work as a prostitute.

Instead of putting legal prostitutes away in jail and letting them out the next morning, crack down on abusive pimps, who beat up their women and steal their money and put them in prison.

Continue to use vice squads and under cover detectives to work the business. But not to arrest prostitutes and johns, but to make sure the employees in the business are acting responsibly and legally.

21 or over with at least a high school diploma at least, healthy and licensed to work in the business. 21 or over, licensed and healthy to be a customer in the business, as well.

Even with these regulations, prostitution is still here to stay. But now it can be as safe a business or profession as it possibly can. With the workers in the business able to make real good money and pay taxes on it. Which would be good for taxpayers, government budgets and the economy.

VOA News: Janet Weinstein: Activists- Higher US Minimum Wage Still Not High Enough

Source:The New Democrat

The so-called conservative economist in this piece, said something that is simply false and perhaps even insulting to minimum wage workers, that I have to correct, or I don’t think I would be doing my job. He said that if you force employers to pay minimum wage workers more than they are worth, that will cost jobs, because employers would find robots to replace those employees. Well, if you’re a cashier at a fast food restaurant, or retailer, or grocery store, you’re an essential employee. Why, because without those employees, those business’s couldn’t stay in business. No one has yet to invent a robot that can do the job of a fast food cashier, or cook. These restaurants have to have those employees in order to stay in business.

So this idea that these positions are only worth the bare minimum, or even less than that for people who believe the minimum wage shouldn’t even exist, is simply not true. Because without these employees, these business’s couldn’t operate and serve their customers. So given all this minimum wage workers are simply underpaid, because their employers have to have them in order to stay in business. And not only do these employers get away with underpaying their employees, but they are able to pass the cost of living of their employees, that don’t cover at all in many cases other than the minimum wage, onto hard-working middle class taxpayers. Who not only struggle to cover their own cost of living, but have to cover at least part of the cost of living of minimum wage workers. Because employers simply underpay and under benefit their essential workers.

One thing that I agree with Democratic Socialist Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on and I you’re familiar with my blogging, you know it’s not a long list, but he’s said that if the Federal minimum wage kept up with inflation from where it was in 1968, it would be over twelve bucks an hour right now. So-called Conservatives and Libertarians, like to say that the market should decide what people are worth. But the market doesn’t decide that, employers do. Employers are only part of the market. And the Federal Government shouldn’t decide what everyone is worth either.

But employers shouldn’t be able to pass their cost of doing business and their employees compensation on to the backs of hard-working middle class workers. That money should go from the employer to their employees. With a twelve dollar an hour minimum wage. Along with having employers pay their share in payroll taxes to cover public assistance programs. Instead of workers having to pay for all of that themselves.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Huffington Post: David Woolner: Seeking The Four Freedoms is as Important Today as it Was 74 Years Ago

Source:The New Democrat

If today’s so-called Progressives, believe that Hillary Clinton is going to run for President as the female Bernie Sanders and the other self-described Democratic Socialist, or even as an FDR Progressive, to quote the heavy metal band Judas Priest, which I’m not a fan of and especially heavy metal, they have another thing coming. Hillary, will speak to Democratic economic concerns and the broader economic concerns of the country and even offer policies to address those concerns. But don’t expect some expansion of the New Deal or a Swedish welfare state. Other than new infrastructure investment job training for displaced, unemployed and low-skilled low-income workers.

Center-Left Democrats, which is Hillary Clinton is one, should be all about freedom and pushing for it and that includes economic freedom. But we need to be more clever and go even further and put more thought into how we accomplish it. Instead of being about individual rights and trying to out socialist Socialists and what government can do for people and how government can take care of people, we should be about individual rights. And what government can do for people who are struggling to move ahead, or even keep current pace, to be able to move forward on their own and achieve economic freedom for themselves by empowering them to improve their own skills. And encouraging more economic, especially small business development. Even for people who are current unemployed or underemployed.

Democrats, could expand economic freedom, by first getting elected and getting reelected. But to do that, by talking to Americans who are struggling regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, that they have a plan to help them get ahead. Improve their skills through further education and job training, including college. Infrastructure investment for underserved communities. Small business expansion and even cooperatives for workers who are struggling to move ahead and give them the opportunity to become successful small business owners. But if Democrats talk about how big government can take care of you, if we just give them more money and not have to do things for ourselves, it will be 1972 George McGovern again. Because Americans, are still a people that like to move ahead, live in freedom and be able to take care of themselves.

Heritage Foundation: Video: Where Is Liberalism Going?

Source:The New Democrat

I always find it entertaining to hear Neoconservatives at the Heritage Foundation and other places, who pushed for the Iraq War fifteen years ago and want the Federal Government to be able to decide who gets to marry in America and who bash the nanny state as they promote it with the War on Drugs and marijuana criminalization, talk about the big government Un-American tendencies of American liberalism. Because, it gives me the opportunity to show educated people, or at the very least people who are willing to be educated, to see how ignorant and, or dishonest other people are. And how they speak so much about something they don’t understand and how they know so much that isn’t true. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan. Someone that Heritage claims to understand.

As I’ve blogged before, what is called modern liberalism, which is what these guys are talking about, is not liberalism. They’re talking about socialism, both democratic and otherwise. And to a certain extent New Deal progressivism, which is classical progressivism. Which is much different from the New-Left of the 1960s and today. Who are Socialists and to the Left of Progressives politically. Liberalism, is about freedom for the individual. Protecting and expanding freedom, not dependence on the central state for the people’s well-being. Socialism, is about the big central state and what the state and government can do for the people. But Liberals, want to use government to empower people who need it to be able to take care of themselves. Which is what freedom is. The ability for one to have self-determination and be able to make their own personal and economic decisions. And live with the consequences of their decisions.

And these guys at Heritage and everywhere else on the Tea Party and Neo-Right, could spend the rest of their lives talking about liberalism as if they’re were talking about communism, Marxism, collectivism, or any other big statist collectivist ideology. But to paraphrase the great conservative philosopher Ron Reagan. They would only be knowing so much that isn’t so. Speaking so much about something that they know very little about. Like a mechanic, trying to give a lecture on brain surgery. Or a fish, giving a lecture about NASCAR. If you want to talk about liberalism, you first need to know what is you’re talking about. And then you need to know that liberalism is about individual rights. The right for individuals to be free.

Because of what liberalism actually is and where Americans tend to be, liberalism is in very good shape. And moving to a period where Americans still want their personal freedom and even have it expanded. Like on issues having to do with marijuana and sexuality and even sexual freedom, including prostitution, which is just behind marijuana. And they also want their privacy protected and even have strong protections for it. As the Patriot Act debate showed last month. But they also don’t want big government with both of their hands in their wallets, taxing most of their money away from them. And this is where Center-Left Democrats tend to be. Wanting to use government to expand freedom for people who don’t have it. And based on this liberalism, is in very good shape in America.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Alfred Hitchcock TV Series: Video: Captive Audience Alfred Hitchcock

Source:The New Democrat

The Captive Audience, is about a man Warren Barrow, played by James Mason, who is a mystery writer, who at the very least wants his publisher to believe that he’s going to kill his girlfriend’s husband and then later his girlfriend, Janet West, played by Angie Dickinson. And sends his publisher, Victor Hartman, played by Arnold Moss, what today would be called a cassette book. Barrow, has written a book on tape about the murders that he wants his publisher to believe that he’s committed. Barrow, at the very least, is unstable, after losing his wife in a car accident and suffering brain injuries that he’s never recovered from.

Victor Hartman, brings in one of his other writers, Tom Keller, played by Ed Nelson, to listen to Barrow’s self-confession tapes, to see what Keller thinks of the tapes. Hartman and Keller, are trying to figure out whether Barrow has just completed his latest murder mystery, or is he serious about murdering these two people. His girlfriend and her husband. They decide that Barrow is serious about these murders and even talk to him about his book. And give him some constructive criticism about his book. Barrow, being unstable, doesn’t take the criticism well and freaks out about it. And takes it as if Hartman and Keller simply don’t understand the book.

Angie Dickinson, is hardly an angel on this show. Just looks like one, but her character Janet West, is married to a wealthy man whose old enough to be her father and she’s not in love with him. She uses men to get what she wants and uses Barrow as well and doesn’t love him either. And this is all part of why Barrow is at the very least considering murdering her. He’s very unstable and doesn’t handle rejection and being used very well. They do a very good job with this episode of not making it clear whether Barrow actually murders his girlfriend, or is this simply part of his book. He’s writing a murder mystery that actually doesn’t happen in real-life. And its one of the better murder mysteries that I at least, have ever seen.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

CBS: The Alfred Hitchcock Hour- Murder Case 1964: Starring Gena Rowlands and John Casavetas

Source: The Daily Journal- Gena Rowlands and John Cassavetas, starring on The Alfred Hitchcock Hour in 1964. 
Source:The New Democrat

This is one of the better episodes of the Alfred Hitchcock Hour, simply because of the people in it. You have two up incoming actors Diana Justin, ( played by Hollywood Goddess Gena Rowlands ) and Lee Griffin, ( played by John Cassavetes ) who were once a couple themselves, who meet again on set in London for a play they’re in. They discover that they’re still hot for each other and want to get back together. The problem is, Diana is married to Charles Justin. ( Played by Murray Matheson ) Charles, is a very wealthy jewelry dealer, who is also old enough to be Diana’s father. To put it mildly, Diana is not with Charles because she loves him. But that is fine with Charles, as long as she makes him feel good.

This new couple, sets out to murder Diana’s husband. They fail once with the breaks in Charles’s car and try it again. Another thing I like about this show, is Charles is not rich, because he’s stupid, or dense. He knows that Diana and Lee are back together and might even try something dangerous. Which is why he sends his wife on vacation to get her away from her boyfriend. Diana, figures out that Charles is on to her, but Charles still wants her. And if you’re familiar with Gena Rowlands, you can easily see why. Doesn’t take a genius, or even someone with average intelligence to figure it out. And Charles, is not going to give up his goddess wife without a clean fight.

Murder Case, despite its simplistic and dull as a brand new pencil title, is one of the better episodes in the Alfred Hitchcock Hour series. It has a great cast and a great plot. Normally in shows like this when the older wealthy husband figures out that his young gorgeous sexy wife, is having an affair with a young man, he dumps his wife as soon as he can. He hires detectives, he gets all the evidence that he needs to get a clean divorce. So he doesn’t have to pay his cheating wife anything. But Charlie, fights for his wife and knows exactly what is going on all the way up to the end. And is just one example of why this is such a great show.

The New York Times: Jason Tubrow: Colorful History of Kezar Stadium

Source:The New Democrat

I guess from the outside looking in, Kezar Stadium was a very attractive football stadium. With pretty sight lines, in a great part of San Francisco, with a pretty field. Not much different from lets say L.A. Memorial Coliseum, or perhaps Rose Bowl Stadium, but a little more than half the size of both of those historic stadiums. But RFK Stadium in Washington, has a great field, fans are on top of the action, with good sight lines, at least for football, but it looks like underground parking lot, once you go back to the concession stands and move away from the field. Kezar Stadium, not football palace, but certainly a stadium with a lot of character.

In the 1950s, the 49ers became winners and contenders at Kezar. Y.A. Tittle, perhaps one of the top ten quarterbacks of all-time, whose in the Hall of Fame, played for the 49ers at Kezar, not Candlestick Park. He was part of the 49ers Million Dollar Backfield. Tittle, along with running backs Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenny, and John Johnson. And RC Owens, great 49ers receiver, was also part of these very good 49er teams. That never seemed to be able to top the Chicago Bears, or Colts in the Western Conference to get to the NFL Championship. Dirty Harry, with Clint Eastwood, did a scene at Kezar.

Kezar Stadium, certainly not a football palace and the 49ers in the early 1970s certainly needed a better football stadium. To have the resources to contend in the NFL in the 1970s and beyond. Kezar, was certainly not Chicago’s Soldier Field, or Green Bay’s Lambeau Field, or even Los Angeles’s Memorial Coliseum, but it was a stadium with a lot of character. It was a true football stadium and not a cookie cutter that was made for both football and baseball in the 1970s. And had San Francisco and the 49ers bothered to renovate the stadium and invest in it, maybe the 49ers are still playing there today. And the Giants, are still playing at Candlestick Park when it was beautiful.

Liberty in Our Time: Video: Blacklisted From History: Interview With Stanton Evans

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not an expert on Stanton Evans, but what I’ve seen from him is that he basically sees Senator Joe McCarthy as the good guy during this period. The Army-McCarthy hearings of 1953-54, chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy in the Senate during the 83rd Congress. Just after Dwight Eisenhower is elected President and Congressional Republicans win back the Senate and House of Representatives. That none of the people who Chairman McCarthy and his staff investigated were innocent. That they were all Communists, or at the very least had solid information about Communists in the U.S. Government.

Were there Communists in America in the 1940s and 50s, of course. Where there Communists in Hollywood in the 1940s and 50s, of course. Were there Communists who also worked in the U.S. Government, yes. Were they Russian agents working for the Soviet Union trying to dismantle the American Federal Republic and American liberal democracy, no. At least from what I’ve seen and all the so-called evidence of Russian agents working for the U.S. Government, all come from Tea Party or neoconservative Far-Right types. Who sees anyone even Republicans, who are to the left of them as soft on communism.

The so-called House Un-American Activities Committee, from the mid and late 1940 and then the Senate Army-McCarthy Committee, from 1953-54, did a lot of damage to America and a lot of Americans. Two major Congressional committees, that made Americans look bad simply because of who they associated with, or had contact with. The ultimate guilt by association, is what these two Congressional committees are responsible for. I mean, a U.S. Senator who is also Chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, Joe McCarthy, accusing one of the most distinguished lawyers and the Chief Counsel of the U.S. Army, as being a Communist and Russia agent, Joe Welch. Is just an example of how bad this committee was and the amount of damage that they did.

Janson Media: Video: The Hollywood Collection: Marilyn Monroe Beyond The Legend

Marilyn Monroe, did seem to lack self-confidence and live in some cocoon or something and not able to see what she really had going for her. From both a personal and physical perspective. And yet the way she carried herself, you would almost have to believe that she knew she was hot, sexy, great body, baby-face adorable, with voice as cute as her face. And the things that she said and how she expressed herself and how she played her parts, you would have to think that she knew that she was very funny as well.

She wasn’t a blonde bimbo, some airhead who looked great, but had nothing else going for her. But she did lack maturity and seemed to stop aging both physically and emotionally when she reached 17, or 18 and never really grew up inside. And yet she was a hell of a talent as an actress, singer and comedian even. Similar to Shelley Winters and Elizabeth Taylor, she made her serious roles and parts look like funny people. Because she was a very funny person herself, who brought herself to all of her roles. And because she didn’t see how talented she was and what she had going for her, abused herself and was depressed a lot.

If Marilyn just bothered to grow up personally and just had a healthy sense of self-worth and self-confidence and bothered to take care of herself and not drink and take all the pills that she did, she could easily still be alive today. I mean, a women with all the skills and talent that Marilyn had, to die at 36 and have died in a plane crash, or a car crash, but to die the way she did from a pill overdose and being drunk at the time as well and all by herself, is one of the biggest damn shame’s of all-time. I can’t think of a sadder way for such a talented women to die then to be that young and alone and die from an overdose. But in her short life, she accomplished so much and left so much behind for people to remember her. And most of it positive.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Democracy Journal: Jim Sleeper: Our Puritan Heritage

Source:The New Democrat

I’m a Liberal Democrat and proud of that, because I believe in liberal democracy and individual rights and the freedom that comes with those things. I believe American liberal democracy and American liberalism, is the best form of government in the world and has been very good to us for almost two-hundred and forty years now, since the founding of the American Federal Republic. I love our private enterprise capitalist system and all the economic freedom that has come with it. Including infrastructure and public education. And I’m sure Europe loves their social democratic big centralized governmental systems, that by in large has worked very well for them.

But just because one system works so well for one country, or several other countries, doesn’t mean that system will work in other countries. The uprisings in the Middle East, including what ISIS is doing in Iraq and Syria, is not a cry out for liberal democracy and individual freedom. But a rebellion against the current central state and central government. And in the case of ISIS, if they were to come to power in Syria and rule that country, they would rule it literally and ruin it. And make Bashar Al-Assad and his regime in Syria look like Moderates. Actually, they’re already done that.

I’m all for assisting countries that want freedom and to build their own liberal society. Whether they are already a democracy, but still developing their economy and state so democracy can thrive there and they don’t go back to authoritarianism. And I’m even for helping rebels who are truly fighting for freedom and are real freedom fighters. Who are taking on the authoritarian state in their country and wanting to bring freedom to their country. But one thing that the Iraq War has taught us, is that you can’t force freedom on another country and expect them to take it. They have to want freedom first and be willing to fight for it and keep it once they have it.

The Economist: What Happened When Portugal Decriminalized Drugs?

Source:The New Democrat

I believe what Portugal is saying with their drug decriminalization policy is that narcotics are bad for you, but is still locking up people simply for illegal drug possession or illegal drug use is also not only bad for you, but bad for the society as well. That Portugal, is not endorsing the usage of cocaine, meth, or heroin, but they’re saying there are better and more cost-effective ways of dealing with narcotics in this country. And instead of sending drug addicts and users to prison for simply using narcotics, they send those people to drug rehab. Which frees up jail and prison space for actual criminals. People who pose an actual threat to the security of Portugal. And hopefully this works, because as bad as the War on Drugs might have been in Portugal, it isn’t a positive thing in any other country. Especially America.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Sam Seder: Video: The Rise of the New Left With Cliff Schecter

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with a lot of what Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter and are saying here. Which might be the first and last times I ever say that. But they’re also being overly optimistic. The Millennial Generation, is the largest generation that we’ve ever had. And they’re still very young and even if they have the largest support of socialism than any generation that we’ve seen since the 1930s, or whatever, that doesn’t mean this is a socialist generation.

The Millennial’s are made of what I call Paul Conservative Libertarians. Named for Ron and his son Rand Paul. And then you have Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists. And then you have what I at least call a classical liberal wing of this generation. People who aren’t anti-government, but don’t want big government running their lives for them. Which is why they support things like same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, big believers in privacy and personal freedom in general. But they also don’t want big government in their wallets and trying to manage their economic affairs either.

Millennial’s, whether they say it or not, like private enterprise and capitalism in general. A lot of them are small business managers and owners. The ones, who’ve actually been able to find jobs. And don’t believe their business should have to pay a lot in taxes. But they believe government needs to do certain things for us. Like education, infrastructure, environmental protection, regulating predators, a safety net for people who need it. But they don’t want that Bernie Sanders socialist superstate that’s going to tax a lot of our money away from us to take care of us. And they don’t want big government in our personal affairs either.

The presidential candidate next year that can speak to young people especially Millennial’s, who says that government doesn’t have all the answers and shouldn’t try to do everything for everybody. But can be a force for good by empowering people to take control over their own lives, will win this generation and probably win Independents in general as well. Who also believe in a limited government that does what we all need it to do in the areas of security, economic investment, to use as examples. And you win these two huge groups and Millennial’s tend to be independent as well, that candidate will be the next President of the United States. I could be wrong about this, but I’m willing to bet it with anyone.

Heritage Foundation: David Horowitz: The Black Book of the American Left

Source:The New Democrat

Not the most disciplined presentation that I’ve seen from David Horowitz. He sort of went off in several different directions and talked about several different things. If you watch his TV interviews, he’s much more disciplined and stays on topic. I agree with Horowitz about the Far-Left and as far as what they’re essentially trying to accomplish.

That individualism, is essentially dangerous and individual freedom, should only be tolerated up to the point that the state isn’t literally making all of our decisions for us. Just the key economic and even personal decisions as well. Like what we can eat and drink, what’s good for us, what media is acceptable and how we can even communicate with each other.

That the U.S. Constitution, is outdated and is a big reason why America isn’t as progressive, as the New-Left would put it. Because it puts so many limits on what the Federal Government can do for its people. That federalism is even a bad thing. Because it means one state will be different from another and people might be able to live better than others simply because of the state that we live in. And the best way to achieve equality is to have one big unitarian central state. With most of the power in the country. There two countries that are roughly our size with governmental systems like that. China and Russia and the New-Left points to Sweden as their model for America.

But where I disagree with David Horowitz, has to do with New-Left versus the so-called Left whatever that is. We do have a New-Left in America and that is our Far-Left. And pre-1963 or so, the Far-Left in America was about as invisible as a Conservative Libertarian in San Francisco. Speaking of San Francisco, perhaps the capital of the New-Left in America and where a lot of their movement got started. Pre-1963 or so and up until Jack Kennedy was assassinated, the Left in America was JFK Liberal Democrats. People who would be called New Democrats today. Who loved the U.S. Constitution and our federalist government. But after JFK, America then got a Center-Left. Liberals, who believe in personal and economic freedom. And a New-Left, Socialists, who believe in equality over freedom.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Democracy Journal: Nick Hanauer & David Rolf: Shared Security, Shared Growth

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Nick Hanauer and David Rolf, that the American economy lacks economic growth and job security. That workers are constantly changing jobs, because either they lose their last job, or aren’t able to find that one job that would allow them to obtain that economic security. Where they’re not only making a good living, but able to put money away in a savings account and for retirement, have a good vacation and put money away for their kids education. But where I guess I disagree with Hanauer and Rolf, has to do with the solutions to these issues. That I don’t believe we need a Scandinavian welfare state to take care of everyone and provide the services that Americans workers use to get from a good job.

That what America needs more, is more economic growth, which leads to more good long-term jobs. You get that through things like economic development and new infrastructure and having a workforce with the skills to get those new jobs. What America should be investing more in, is education and job training for our middle class workers and our low-skilled workers as well. As well as infrastructure, small business development and more small business loans. Especially for workers who aren’t finding those good long-term jobs and instead give them small business loans so they can start their own new business. Perhaps even open up a new cooperatives and even open up these business’s with workers who are in a similar economic situation. As well give them educational and job training opportunities.

We have a huge infrastructure deficit. We have to close that in order to have the strongest economy possible and a modern first world infrastructure system.

We have a lower working class, that needs additional skills, so they can get themselves a good job.

We also have a struggling middle class, that has lost jobs that aren’t coming back. And they need new skills so they can get themselves a good job.

And we need new infrastructure as we as economic investment in underdeveloped areas both rural and urban.

This is what government can do jumpstart economic and job growth that leads to good long-term jobs. Empower people who are struggling to get themselves up and be able to move forward. By investing in infrastructure, opening up new education and job training opportunities and encouraging economic investment in underdeveloped areas.

US News: Eric Schnurer: ‘Don’t Look Back to Move Forward’

I agree with Eric Schnurer, that Martin O’Malley is an old-school Liberal. But we differ on what it means to be an old-school Liberal. Schnurer, seems to think that an old-school Liberal is someone who believes that government has a program that can solve every problem that comes up. That big centralized government has all the answers. That we’re always one new tax increase, or new tax, new social program, or new investment in a current social program from solving all of our problems. And this type of political thinking does have a label for it. But it’s not Liberal and liberalism is not that government and statist centric.

Jack Kennedy, when he ran for President in 1960, gave a speech at the New York Liberal Party convention. And he defined liberalism and liberal there. And I’m paraphrasing JFK, but he said that, “if liberal means someone whose soft on defense, irresponsible with tax dollars, believes in a superstate to solve everyone’s problems for them, then I’m not that Liberal.” Then Senator Kennedy went on to say, “but if a Liberal is someone who looks ahead and not behind, whose concern about the welfare of others, who believes we can always do better, than I’m that Liberal.” JFK, is Bill Clinton’s political hero and they think a lot alike when it comes to politics and policy.

Martin O’Malley, is not a Centrist and someone who is basically in the middle on most issues and perhaps leans left on social issues and leans right on fiscal issues. But he’s also not a Democratic Socialist, or perhaps even a New Deal Progressive. He’s someone who believes government can’t do everything, but can help people who especially need it move ahead, move forward and be able to live in freedom with the rest of the country. As his record as Mayor of Baltimore and then Governor of Maryland indicates. He’s someone who believes in making government work and making it efficient to serve as many people as possible. Not making government bigger, just to create more government jobs and spend more money.

Governor O’Malley, has been light on details as far as his presidential campaign so far. But I believe that is how he’s going to run for President. He’s not going to try to out Socialist the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, or get stuck in the middle with Hillary Clinton. But you’ll see the JFK New Democratic Liberal leanings in him and policies. As someone who wants to bring young voters with him and show them how government can work to help people improve their own lives. Not to try to take most of their money from them and try to run their lives for them. And I believe he’ll be able to bring a lot of Democrats with him with that type of campaign.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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