Grit-TV: Video: Richard Wolff: Bernie Sanders and Socialism

Source:The New Democrat

I guess I look at socialism like I look at conservatism. Not that they are similar, but that both have two competing factions in them. With conservatism, you have Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians and you have Libertarians. And lets leave the Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives out of this for the purpose of this piece. And with socialism, you have the Marxists, who are way out in left field. And is an ideology that has almost no power in the world now. And then you have the Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who not just believe in socialism and a democratic form of it, but believe that for socialism to be as effective as possible, you must have a sufficient private sector and private enterprise. To generate the revenue needed for the socialist state to thrive.

And Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters and before him lets say George McGovern in the 1970s, Norman Thomas in the 1960s, Henry Wallace in the 1950s and 1940s, all of these men are Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who are very democratic in nature and even believe in a level of both personal and economic freedom, but who believed that you needed a welfare state-run by government to see to it that no one was left behind. That everyone was taken care, that there was a social insurance system for people who go through tough times in the private enterprise economy. And to take care of people who are disabled and who simply can’t work at all.

In a democratic socialist system, you would have some industries that are nationalized as well. In the areas that Socialists believe everyone needs to have and be able to use at an affordable rate. Things like health care, education, health insurance, pension, energy, banking to use as examples. But by in the large the economy would be in private hands. People would not just own their own personal property, but could start their own business and run their business. You would even see large private business’s. Including automakers, telecommunications, media, manufacturing, all small and local business’s. But they would all be subjected to high taxes and regulations to see that no one has to go without. These being the differences between socialism and statism.

The Federalist: Remember The Moral Majority? Russell Moore Says It’s Over

Source:The New Democrat

I hope the Moral Majority as a movement at least in the sense that it has any real political power outside of the Republican Party is essentially over and done with. It is a movement that still sees America in the year 1955. Even as the country is now sixty-years old and has simply developed and moved on.

Americans, tend to like their freedom and to be able to live their own lives. And generally now especially with younger Americans even in the Bible Belt, don’t have issues with things like multiculturalism and racial and ethnic diversity, homosexuality, women working out of the home, pre-marital sex, domestic partnerships that even produce children, immigration, gambling pornography and I could go on, but I’ll save you from that. But these are all issues that the Moral Majority has fought against at least since the 1960s and have even wanted government to get involved in and regulating with how consenting adults live their own lives.

What you may see now with whatever is left of the Moral Majority is a movement that tries to bring people to them. But leaves government out and tells people this is the best and moral way to live based on their religious values. And try to get people to adopt their way of life and lifestyle. But stop trying to get government to pass their values into law. And to educate people about what their movement is about. Because I think they are even realizing now and Russell Moore is an example of this that they no longer have much support outside of the Republican Party and have even lost support inside of the Republican Party. With the growing conservative libertarian movement that is made up of a lot of young Republicans now.

The Baseline Scenario: James Kwak: Friedrich Hayek Supported a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Source:The New Democrat

Friedrich Hayek, supported the Guaranteed Minimum Income and Milton Friedman supported the Negative Income Tax. Good for them and the libertarian movement, because it shows that perhaps the least politically diverse political movement in America even has some diversity with some competing ideas in it. The Negative Income Tax by the way, would replace all public assistance programs for the poor and give people in poverty one check every month that would have all of their public assistance benefits every month in one check. Bill Buckley, a Conservative Libertarian was against that.

Now here are my issues with what is called the Guaranteed Minimum Income, or the Guaranteed Basic Income, however you want to put it. As a Liberal, I want everyone to be incentivized to do as well as they can in America so they don’t have to live in poverty. The best way to move people out of poverty is to supply quality education, job training and infrastructure in communities that come up short in these areas. So kids from these communities can get themselves a good education and so their parents can finish and further their education and get themselves a good job and get out of poverty all together. That is how you beat poverty. Education, job training, infrastructure and good jobs.

Once you take away the incentive like with a Guaranteed Basic Income for Americans to do well in life and do as well as they can so they and their kids don’t have to live in poverty, because whatever job they have, or if they choose not work, because their income is now guaranteed no matter how productive they are, you’ll see a major drop in productivity in America. And as a result a major drop in economic growth. Because companies are no longer producing the quality of products their customers are accustomed to. And as a result people aren’t spending the money they normally do. Which is a big part of our economic growth, consumer spending. Why? Because no matter what we are all guaranteed a minimum income that keeps us out of poverty.

The New Republic: The Long March to Medicare

Source:The New Democrat

The fiftieth anniversary of the most successful government health insurance program in the country, if not the most successful health insurance program period. No other health insurer has provided more health insurance to more Americans than Medicare. And perhaps to more people in the world than Medicare. My issues with Medicare is not that the program exists at all, which is the libertarian argument against it. Or that it is a government-run health insurance program. But my issues is with how the program was set up. And the reason why it was set up, is because that is the best that Democratic Congress with Republican help from the minority could come up with in 1965.

We are a huge country that is between two of the largest oceans in the world. And that is just the mainland United States and back in 1965 we were a country roughly one-eighty-million people or so. And today we are pushing three-hundred-twenty-million people. And yet we set up two new huge health insurance programs that are to be run by one central authority in this huge country. Instead of bringing in the states to run their share of this program for their state. Or to create one health insurer that everyone could be eligible for. Not forced on them, but have a new public health insurer that everyone could sign up for and pay into if they choose to. Along with putting money down along with their employer so they are guaranteed health insurance in their senior years.

The original Affordable Care Act of 2009-10 that was passed by the House of Representatives in fall of 2009 had a public option in it for Medicare. Meaning people under Medicare age could sign up and pay into Medicare before they retire and before they are 65. That amendment was taken out of the Senate in the early spring of 2010. So the final bill that was passed on March of didn’t have the public option in it. So Medicare is still the largest health insurer in the country if not world and yet it only covers seniors. The least healthiest population of the country and makes it very expensive to run and pay for. You give middle-age and young adults and their kids the option to be part of Medicare and you would see millions of Americans sign up for Medicare. Which would bring down the costs of Medicare, because you would have young healthy Americans as part of the program.

Yes Medicare has been a very successful program because it has guaranteed health insurance to millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn’t have had it. Or would’ve ended up moving to the poor house, or having to sell everything that has value to them in order to get health care in their senior years. But this program could be so much better and so much more cost-effective and not so top-down. And allow for middle-age and young adults to cover themselves and their health insurance through Medicare. As well as similar to Medicaid bring the states in and allow for them to set up their own Medicare program where all of their citizens would be eligible for instead of just their seniors. And we wouldn’t need a Medicaid, or a Children’s Health Insurance Program, because those customers could take Medicare. Which is a much better program anyway.

Politico Magazine: Barney Frank: Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I’m not writing this because I believe Bernie Sanders will ever be President of the United States, or believe he can even beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The second part, I’m not sure about, but Bernie’s chances of ever being President of the United States are somewhere between George McGovern and none. And if you don’t know who George McGovern is, you might be to dumb and young to read this. And I’m not writing this because I support Bernie Sanders for president either. Because I don’t and have already declared my support for Martin O’Malley. Who I believe is the only true Liberal Democrat in the race at least as far as what he’s actually accomplished.

I’m writing this, because I don’t want Hillary Clinton to get a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination. Without having to explain to Democrats why she should be President of the United States. Other than who her husband is and do you remember the 1990s and oh by the way she’s a women and would be the first female President of the United States. Every single U.S. President that we’ve had at least since 1976 has had to go through a real primary process and has had to introduce them self and explain to voters why they want to be president and what they would do as president. Barack Obama 2008, George W. Bush 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 2000 and Jimmy Carter 1976. Why should Hillary Clinton be any different? What makes her more special than those future president’s?

This idea that Representative Barney Frank was making that if Hillary gets a real primary challenge in 2016, that will make her weaker in the general election against whoever the Republicans decide to nominate for president, assuming they actually make that decision, is at least borderline ridiculous and I could use stronger language than that. First of all, Hillary was the frontrunner not just for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but also expected to be the next President of the United States. But she ends up losing the Democratic nomination to a junior Senator named Barack Obama. So lets say she wins the nomination in 2008, she probably loses to John McCain in the fall. Because the issues that she would’ve had in the primaries like not knowing why she wanted to be president and not having a vision, would’ve come out.

Being the frontrunner, just means you’re the favorite going in. That you have the most support and best finances than any other candidate in the race. Similar to an NFL team expected to be the favorite to win the Super Bowl in the summer. But Super Bowls aren’t won in the summer. And presidential elections and primaries aren’t decided more than a year from the presidential election. At the end of the day the person with the best campaign, organization, finances and message and vision for where they want to take the country not just wins their party’s nomination for president, but is elected the next president. And then Senator Obama, simply beat then Senator Clinton in all of these areas in 2008.

A year from now assuming that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president, I don’t want her to still be in her centrist independent experience matters shell that she was in just a couple of months ago before Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley started to give her some real competition and forced her to give some real speeches and take real policy positions. And not know why she wants to be President of the United States. If Hillary hasn’t figured that out by now and figure out how to communicate that to Democratic voters, well one she might have a problem, but two she’s running out of time to figure that out. The first Democratic presidential debate will be in August, or September.

Political primaries, aren’t about destroying the frontrunner and doing whatever you can to beat that person at all costs and dividing the party. They are a real competition to decide who will not only be the next leader of the party, but the next leader of the country. And in this case the most important job in the world which is President of the United States. This is not something that should be handed out to the person with best name ID, or who happens to be the most popular in the party in the beginning. Democratic primaries at least, make Democratic presidential candidates better. Because it forces candidates to deal with issues and even their own concerns early on. While they still have time to deal with them and fix them. The competition that Hillary is getting right now, will only make her better if she handles it correctly and successfully address’ it. And if not, then maybe she shouldn’t be the next Democratic nominee for president, because she didn’t earn it.

The Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: The Republican Cuckservatives

Source:The New Democrat

So I guess cuckservative, whatever that is, sounds to me more like some type of sexual insult, perhaps a shot at gay men, or something, but I guess this is the new term that Tea Party Neoconservatives use for Republicans who aren’t as far to the right as they are. I know, a cukservative is a shot from the Christian-Right against gay Republicans. Even though gays tend to agree with Republicans on economic policy. But what is a Republican, really. I know the answer to this, so I’ll share what it is. A Republican, is someone who believes in a republican form of government. And in a federal republican liberal democratic country like America, that means checks and balances and a country that is governed by a constitution. Not by religious institutions, or religious groups, regardless of religion.

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, that Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer calls the modern John Birch Society, is not new to the Republican Party. But what makes them different from the John Birhcer’s of the 1960s lets say, is that the Tea Party has real power and numbers. Even in Ronald Reagan’s time, the John Birchers were seen as a fringe group and people who lived in their own world and saw things that others didn’t see. And a lot of that had to do because they were on a different political planet. But post-Reagan and even the Bush’s, the Republican establishment is pretty weak. The GOP has a leadership void that we haven’t seen in either major political party since the Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s, when they were seen as way out in left field. Now Republicans are seen as way out in right field.

Back in the day, Republicans were Republicans. They believed in a strong vibrant private sector with a strong private enterprise capitalist economy. That government closest to home is the best government. That deficit spending is bad spending and that even included the defense budget, not including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And speaking of defense, they believed in a strong national defense of course. But that was mostly about the national security of the United States, not being strong enough to police the world by ourselves.

Back in the day, women and even racial and ethnic minorities voted Republican. Why? Because Republicans didn’t push the social issues for the most part. It was Barry Goldwater who is famous for saying that a Conservative is someone who wants big government out of our wallets, homes, schools and boardrooms. But I guess Senator Goldwater would be called a RINO today, because he wasn’t with the Christian-Right on most issues. Women and minorities at one point voted for Republicans, because they didn’t make it harder for minorities to vote with bogus voter ID laws, or bash immigration and call non-Europeans immigrants Un-American and accuse them of coming to America so they can be on welfare and questioning their work-ethic and all of that. It was Ron Reagan that called America an immigrant nation.

I’m not a Republican obviously as a Liberal Democrat, but the people who I just described as Republicans the Barry Goldwater’s, Ron Reagan’s, Ron Paul’s even, are. The RINOS, are people who are only Republicans in Name Only, because we no longer have a Whig Party, or a Confederate Party, or a Christian Conservative Party, a Neoconservative Party. Where they would be more comfortable politically being a part of. Today’s RINOS, are only Republicans, because that is the only major political in America that would take them, instead of institutionalizing them, or trying to deport them. Today’s GOP is suffering from a leadership vacuüm. Which is what tends to happen to political parties when they spend a long time outside of the White House and when their last presidency didn’t go very well. Which is very similar to what happen to Democrats in the 1970s and 80s.

Reason Magazine: Steve Chapman: Martin O’Malley – Unknown But Not Implausible

Source:The New Democrat

I think Steve Chapman in his Reason piece makes some of the best points that I’ve heard about Martin O’Malley yet. His point being that O’Malley has already accomplished a lot of what Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton say that they want to do. He’s the only Democratic presidential candidate with not just real executive experience, or a lot of it, but executive experience that has come with real positive results.

Raising the minimum wage in Maryland

Moving people out of poverty in Baltimore and Maryland

Improving education and investing more in it in Baltimore and Maryland.

Legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.

Outlawing the death penalty in Maryland.

Reducing crime in one of the biggest cities in America in Baltimore. And lowering crime in Baltimore faster than any other big city mayor.

Decriminalizing marijuana in Maryland.

Martin O’Malley, doesn’t have a record of fighting for progressive and liberal values. He has a record of accomplishing liberal and progressive goals based on those values. Here’s a former state governor that left his state with the best public schools in the nation. You can say you’re a fighter, right. But boxers like politicians are judged by their records. Anyone can fight a good fight and come close. But at the end of the day it comes down to what have you done for me lately. Did you accomplish what you set out to do, or did you fight a good fight, but still came up short. Martin O’Malley, has a clear successful record of accomplishing what Liberal and Progressive Democrats say they want.

What separates Martin O’Malley from Senator Bernie Sanders, whose been in Congress since the early 1990s and before that was a small town mayor in Vermont and even Hillary Clinton, who didn’t have a great record as Secretary of State and left that office with Benghazi on her plate, is that the Governor’s two main opponents are fighters and have fought good causes. But what has either one accomplished while they’ve been in office for such a long time. They are both big names and well-known and both have real pop culture appeal to them. But what have they done for anyone lately? With Governor O’Malley, he can answer that question clearly and give people a list of accomplishments. And yet not many Democrats have even heard his name yet.

USA Today: Senator Tom Coburn: A Deficit of Debt Discussion

Source:The New Democrat

This is the main reason why I wish Senator Coburn at least finished his last term in the Senate. But he is dealing with serious health issues right now and its easy to see why he stepped down. But he was one of the few people in Congress that actually understood the threat of the national debt to the American economy, but also knew what to do to actually fix those issues. That you weren’t going to get our debt under control simply by cutting programs and benefits for people in poverty. Or raising their taxes. That you had to look at entitlements, tax reform, the military budget and economic growth and get more people working. Which is where infrastructure and tax reform come in.

This is also one reason why we need a real third-party in America. A party that could speak to forty-percent of the country that doesn’t like the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party. A party that could get twenty-percent or more of the popular vote and perhaps even win some states. And challenge Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Like the old Ross Perot United We Stand movement. A real Independence Party that at the very least could at least bring Democrats and Republicans to the table when it comes to our financial issues. And move them away from their talking points and their partisan attacks. Right now, Democrats don’t want to talk about the debt and deficit. Other than taxing the rich and hoping that revenue doesn’t leave the country.

Republicans, like to talk about debt and deficits. But the problem is that’s all that they do. They say vote for me and I’ll cut wasteful Washington spending. But won’t lay out where’s the waste in the Federal budget that they would cut. They say if you cut business taxes and regulations that would jumpstart economic growth in America. And that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Which technically is true, but the huge factor that they leave out is that we have a substantial corporate welfare budget. All sorts taxpayer-funded subsides that the Bowls-Simpson Debt Commission that Senator Coburn was a member of in 2010 called tax expenditures. But you don’t tend to hear Republicans talking about cutting corporate welfare.

As long as the two parties and their bases that are in charge of the Federal Government essentially hate each other, we are not going to get a real debt reduction plan out of Congress and singed by the President whoever that President is. Why? Because what we need to do to fix our financial affairs will mean real sacrifices. And the longer we wait the more sacrifice there will be for more people.

A tax code, with lower rates, including on business’s. But where a lot of the loopholes are gone.

A military budget that won’t be responsible for financing the national defense of other developed countries.

An entitlement system, where people who are wealthy will be expected to pay more. And where everyone who can will be expected to work longer.

A public assistance system, where people collecting public assistance who can and aren’t disabled will be expected to work their way off of Welfare all together.

And no presidential candidate wants to ask Americans to do these things right now. Because it would mean risking votes from people who depend on all of these government benefits right now for their way of life. Which is a big problem with our Federal budget right now. That it is mostly about military and financial subsidies for people who can’t seem to live without them. Instead of creating a society, an economy and public assistance system where people are empowered and expected to be able to take care of themselves. Unless they are physically, or mentally disabled.

Prakash RP: On The Definition of Communism

Source:Prakash RP: Blog: On The Definition of Communism

I think I got the broader goals of what communism is supposed to be now. That there should be no profits, that a country is a community, which is where Communist comes from. That the whole community should literally share everything with out anyone owning anything. So that would eliminate property rights all together and essentially make everything in society under the ownership of the central communist state. The state, would even own someone’s home where they live. The state, would own our cars and even clothes. No such thing as a private sector. Why? Because there’s no such thing as property rights.

So even in true communist state, things like opposition parties would be outlawed. Why? Because at least in America the state doesn’t own political parties. They’re own and run by private individuals. So if Prakash RP, a self-described Communist and his definition of communism is correct, plus what I just wrote about communism, based on what I read from his blog, how does this version of communism any different from the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China before they legalized private property and ownership. Same thing with the Communist Republic of China before they went capitalist and brought private enterprise to their economy about ten years ago. Which is just one of the reasons why America and Cuba have restarted diplomatic relations.

If you’re familiar with the Reverend Jim Jones and his People’s Temple from the 1970s and their big field trip to Guyana in the 1970s, you know that is exactly the type of state he tried to create there with his so-called Jonestown. A state where the people would live off the land and live to serve each other and share everything that they gain with each other from off the land. Now of course Jones turned into a brutal paranoid dictator and perhaps responsible for the deaths of a thousand innocent people down there. But that is what we wanted Jonestown to be at least in the beginning. This communitarian communistic even environment where there would be no profits and selfishness. Again, how is that type of economic system different from what we use to see from Russia, China, Cuba and still today with North Korea?

Keith Hughes: The Dred Scott Decision Explained: US History Review

The New DemocratSource:The New Democrat

The Dred Scott decision is one of the worst decisions in American history. The fact that African-Americans weren’t considered American citizens at the time, even if they lived in free states meaning that whether you were African, or Caucasian you were free and couldn’t be held as a slave and that under the U.S. Constitution everyone born inside of the United States, or has at least one parent born in the United States, was ridiculous. A simple bad reading of U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution at best and racist at worst from the U.S. Justices’s who ruled in that direction. And of course this decision was even worst for Dred Scott who would have to live as a slave.

But even with horrible rulings and decisions comes some positive features. It meant the United States was going to have to decide whether it was going to be a free country. Meaning all Americans are free, or whether it was going to be a half free, half slaved country. If you’re of European descent, you were free and couldn’t be a slave. If you were of African descent, you most likely would be a slave. Had the Confederate States somehow managed to win the American Civil War. The Dred Scott decision was kind of like that last blow that ignited the American Civil War. Putting the North against the South to decide what type of country America was going to be. Or would we end up splitting similar to what happened to Germany, Korea and Vietnam. A free North and a half free half slaved South.

The American Civil War, was bad for lots of reasons. Because of all the destruction that came to America. Leaving the North to be fairly prosperous which it has remained for the most part ever since. And the South to be fairly poor and needing so much Federal aid to try to rebuild themselves. And something the South, if you look at South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, they’ve never fully recovered from the Civil War. Plus all the innocent lives that were lost on both sides. But the Civil War did lead to the abolishment of slavery in America. And America has only made progress in the areas of race relations, equal rights and civil rights ever since.

The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman (1980)

Source:The New Democrat

Phil Donahue, is probably as far-left as a TV show host could be, at least in his time. And yet even with his staunch slant and support for government interference, government assistance and government taxation, he was a hell of an interviewer. Especially when it came to intelligent people who came from lets say the opposite side of the political spectrum. Someone like a Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be another example. Not sure if he ever interviewed Bill Buckley, but that would’ve been a great interview and show as well. Donahue, would let his guests speak. He would also make his case and they would have a back and forth. And he would also get his audience involved.

What you had in Phil Donahue, was a Collectivist. From the left in the form of a Progressive, or even Progressive/Socialist. Making the case that private enterprise, private enterprise and even capitalism come with risks. If not dangerous and perhaps are even bad things. But its better than Marxism and total state-ownership when it comes to economics. But if we’re going to have capitalism and private enterprise, they need to be well-regulated, which means highly regulated, for someone with a more Socialist background. And you need a government big enough to take care of people who don’t do well in the private enterprise system.

Milton, didn’t come the exact opposite direction on the Right. Because he did believe in things like regulations when it came to the environment. And even came out for reforming the safety net, instead of eliminating it. But he didn’t like high taxes and highly centralized government and wanted as little government, especially the Federal Government involvement in the economy. So you would have Donahue in this interview always not just making the case for government and even central government involvement in the economy, but making the case for more government involvement in the economy. And yet these two men could have a very good and productive discussion and debate on these issues. Because they actually listened to each other.

ABC News: Senate Select Watergate Committee May, 17, 1973: Senator Sam Ervin’s Opening Remarks

Source:The New Democrat

Without the Senate Watergate Committee, President Nixon doesn’t get impeached at least in that Congress and when he did in 1974. Because of how they and the special prosecutors office were able to get people in the Nixon White House and the Nixon reelection campaign to talk about what they knew about Watergate and the coverup, that is how all of this information came out. To the point that Congressional Republicans both in the House and Senate could no longer support President Nixon.

John Dean, in great detail laid out for the committee under threat of prosecution of course, exactly how the Watergate coverup was conducted. Since he was essentially in charge of managing the coverup. White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, also played a big role in that. But Dean, was essentially the desk sergeant of this case. And managed all the information that came in, as well as what to do with the information. And what people involved in the Watergate break in either needed to keep quiet, or what kind of legal defense that they needed.

But the disclosure of the taping system, is really what ended the Nixon Administration. Without that disclosure, President Nixon probably survives Watergate. He would’ve been a lot weaker and had a hard time dealing with a Democratic Congress that would’ve expanded their majorities in the House and Senate in 1974 whether he was still President, or not. But he still would’ve been President of the United States for the last two and a half years of his presidency. And perhaps would’ve achieved a few other foreign policy success’. But the taping system is what nailed the President. Where he’s caught on tape ordering the coverup. And the Senate Watergate Committee brought that to the public.

TIME: Blog: Lilly Rothman: See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970

Source:The New Democrat

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society. Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s. American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing. You would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine. But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.

Liberty Pen: Video: Megyn Kelly: Free Speech Under Assault

Source:The New Democrat

Hate speech, which I believe this anti-Muslim event and their drawings of Muhammad clearly falls under, is protected by the First Amendment. Government, can’t shut someone up, because they, or other people disagree with what someone is saying. Or are even assaulted and even find it hateful. You don’t like liberal democracy and our liberal First Amendment, perhaps America is not the country for you. And you would be better off living in the Middle East, or some place where you won’t have those issues to deal with.

And another great thing about the First Amendment, is when some asshole says something hateful about some group, guess what, that person opens them self up to replies and responses. People being able to tell that person what they think about what that person has to say. And even hold rallies against that person. Bill Maher, who I don’t generally put in the asshole category and tend to even agree with him when it comes to his criticisms about the Christian-Right and Muslims, when he doesn’t lump all Christians and Muslims as bad people, or whatever. Found out how liberal our First Amendment is last fall. About his comments over Islam.

When the Far-Right in America, whether its Rush Limbaugh or some other fathead, says provocative if not derogatory things about Latinos, Muslims, even women, Americans let Rush know exactly what they think about him. When Megyn Kelly even, accuses President Obama of trying to bring socialism to America, or whatever she’s complaining about the President, or says that he’s governing like a dictator, I correct her on my blog, when I don’t have anything better to do. You know Free Speech, is not for everybody. Meaning not everyone can handle it as far as listening to it. Of course all Americans have the First Amendment right, but not all Americans can handle other Americans having that same right. So they try to shut the other side up.

To quote President Andrew Shepard from The American President, which is one my favorite movies. “America is hard. You have to want it to be able to handle it.” More of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. And President Shepard played by Michael Douglas, was referring to Free Speech. He said that we all have this right, but that right protects all Americans right to Free Speech. And he basically said that the Free Speech is only worth something if Americans are willing to fight for someone else’s right to speech. The right for someone to say and believe things that you might find disgusting.

Insulting speech and hate speech, we have to fight for those things to. Because when Americans are no longer able to be critical and even say things that are offensive, we lose the ability to be individuals. And end up just agreeing and loving each other and never learning anything new. Because we see everyone as perfect. And there’s nothing perfect, or collectivist about liberal democracy and Free Speech. It’s a very imperfect system and form of government. But it’s still the best system in the world and why so many people leave their country that doesn’t have these rights to come here. Instead of going to Europe, or Canada. Actually, people still leave Europe to come to America.

Gustavo Lagos: The Best of Ann Coulter

Source:The New Democrat

I think Alan Colmes had the best line in this video. When he said that he thinks that he has Ann Coulter all wrong. His point was that he now sees her as just a political satirist who says all sorts of insulting if not hateful and certainly ignorant things to make people on the Far-Right look bad. I see her as Far-Right and not as a Center-Right Conservative for obvious reasons. Conservatives, tend to be a lot more intelligent and at least try to back up what they say with actual facts. With Ann Coulter, she speaks her mind and is provocative intentionally and then she tries to explain what she means by that later, if she can. The way I would put Ann Coulter, is that she’s a political satirist at best and a pretty good one at times.

If Coulter is not a satirist, she’s quite frankly a bullshit artist. Someone who speaks out of their ass on a regular basis. Either intentionally to sell her books and columns, or because like most assholes, she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. But because her views are so outer space and light years away from Earth, people are interested in her, because of how different she is. Coulter to me is like a rich women’s Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin, very entertaining and at times a pretty good political analyst and satirist, but not someone you want filling out your taxes for you, or perhaps watching your kids, let alone holding a responsible job in public office. And Ann Coulter, is slightly better than that. Because I wouldn’t want her to watch my kids, but if she did my taxes she could probably find a few tax breaks for me.

Some entertainers and commentators who weren’t very popular in their time, but lets say a generation later they look great. Because they fit that era and then look brilliant and become pop culture heroes and celebrities and so-forth. Have books and perhaps even movies made about them. Lenny Bruce, who was a comedian in the 1950s and was probably twenty-years ahead of his time, because he used a lot of adult language and talked about adult subjects in his act. With Coulter the obvious is true. But she’s not twenty years before her time. More like 80-100. When gays were still locked in the closet. Before it was common for women to work outside of the home. Before women could even vote and I could go down the line.

Ann Coulter, whether she actually believes in what she says and doesn’t have this moment, “gee, did I really just say that? I’m not sure I believe my own words.”, or she’s really as dumb as a brick and makes and makes both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann look like genius’, knows how to get people to think and talk. And generally it is a lot of negative things about her. But whether this is intentional or not on her part, she’s a hell of a businesswomen. She knows how to sell her books and columns and the more attention she gets about them and generally outside of so-called Fox News and Far-Right publications and even some Center-Right publications, it’s generally bad publicity. But publicity good and bad sells her books and columns. Is she a political satirist, or bullshit artist? If only I was a mind-reader.

The Michael Parkinson Show: Diana Dors, Kenneth Williams & Desmond Morris (1971)

Source:The New Democrat

From every interview I’ve seen of Diana Dors at least from the 1970s, she reminds me a lot of another great actress who was also as cute as a button, a very big button, but she reminds me a lot of the great Shelley Winters. Someone who always had something funny to say and had an opinion on everything and who also had great comedic timing. Again, as I blogged before, I wish Diana was around a lot longer. She’s only about 40 when this interview was done in 1971 and only had thirteen years to live at this point. Also without BBC and other British television networks, we would’ve had a hard time seeing her doing anything at least in America. Because she stopped working here and rarely came back.

Desmond Morris, was social biologist who studied human behavior. And what he was talking about in this video was how people behave and look in the act of sex. And trying to fit his demonstration in why some women are as he put it sex bombs, or sex symbols. Talking about how people’s eyes tend to close and their lips get bigger in the act of performing sex. With Diana, making the crack that this happens to her all the time. That her lips get bigger. But there’s lot more to Diana Dors in why she was a goddess, or I prefer English Muffin and great English baby-faced goddess. Who was born as a baby obviously, but never lost her baby face even after she got a bit more plump in the 1970s. Which if anything might of just made her cuter.

Diana Dors, reminds me a lot of Shelley Winters as far as stature and personality. Someone who was very adorable obviously. Who was very versatile as an actress, who was also a hell of an actress and someone you wouldn’t forget if you saw her. With a great personality and sense of humor who could always drop the humor and make people laugh. And pull jokes out of nowhere even when others were talking. Who had a tendency to steal the show even when she was on with other comedians, like you see in this interview. But as Desmond Wilcox put it, she was sex bomb, or as we say in America a bombshell. Diana, was a hot baby-faced adorable goddess with a great body that guys dreamed about. And again it would’ve been nice if she was around a lot longer.

C-SPAN: President Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Press Statement

Source: C-SPAN-President William J. Clinton-

Source:The New Democrat

The 1996 Welfare to Work Law, I believe is the best part of the Clinton Presidency. Along with moving the Democratic Party back to the Center-Left and making it a national party again. That can win outside of Washington, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the traditional McGovernite and more social democratic areas of the country. Because the Welfare to Work Law, gave millions of Americans who probably only knew Welfare as far as any income that was coming into their homes, the opportunity to go to work. To finish their education and get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work is really about.

The only way to cut poverty in America, is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to move up the economic ladder and become economically self-sufficient. That gets to things like education and job creation, as well as economic development and infrastructure in low-income communities. You can give someone on public assistance the biggest public assistance checks that you possibly can that American taxpayers are willing to subsidize. But as long as people on public assistance are collecting those checks and can’t support themselves without those checks, they’re on Welfare and living in poverty.

So to actually move people out of poverty, you have to empower them to get a good job. And tell them that they can’t stay on Welfare indefinitely and use that time to improve themselves and prepare to become members of the American workforce. That means childcare for their kids, requiring parents who are no longer involved in their kids lives to pay their child support payments. Encouraging employers to hire and train people who are on Welfare. And making education and job training available to people on Welfare so they can finish their education and get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

As President Clinton said many times, the Democratic Party should be the party that is about opportunity, empowerment, liberalization, liberation. Liberalization and liberation being my words, but that we should be a party that is about using government to empower people. Using a limited responsible government to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom who are struggling to work their way up the economic ladder and be able to live in freedom. Like most of the rest of the country. Not using government to make more people dependent. Or saying that people who are low-skilled and have kids can stay on public assistance indefinitely simply because they are low-skilled and have kids. As if they are disabled, or something for those reasons. Welfare to Work, is a big part of that.
C-SPAN: President Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Press Statement

Dandelion Salad: Elizabeth Schulte: Socialism According to Eugene V. Debbs

Source:The New Democrat

So I guess at least according to Elizabeth Schulte, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Eugene Debs and to the left of Progressive’s Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and I’ll explain what I mean by that.

Eugene Debbs, Marxist, had he ever became President of the United States and had the support of Congress, would’ve outlawed capitalism, private enterprise and that includes property rights. Perhaps, but not guaranteed, just short of taking people’s personal ownership of their personal property away from. Meaning an individual, could own their own home and car, to use as examples. But those things would’ve been made by state-owned companies.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist. Democratic Socialists, believe in at least a certain level of personal autonomy. That includes both personal and economic freedom. That even includes the ability to vote for opposition parties and opposition parties that are on the other side of the political spectrum. Bernie, doesn’t have a problem with private enterprise and even capitalism. Just how the resources and income and distributed. So if you’re doing well in America through the private sector, great. According to Bernie, but you’re going to pay enough in taxes to see that those who are struggling are also taken care of.

Bernie Sanders, is not running to completely change the American economic system and destroy the liberal capitalist model, our liberalized economic system, that has liberated so many people out of poverty in America. What he wants to do is add a socialist component to our liberal economic system built around a large central government. To see that no one has to go without and live in poverty. As well as invest in our American capitalist private enterprise economy. Things like education, infrastructure, energy, immigration, better trade deals according to Bernie. So that more Americans can succeed in our private sector. And not have to live off of public assistance to take care of them.

Bill Whittle: Defense Debacle: Should Conservatives Cut Military Spending?

Source:The New Democrat

I think its obvious the United States defense budget should be and has been on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. And it has been since the 2011 Budget Control Act, that was negotiated between Congress and the Obama Administration, that was part of the debt ceiling agreement from that year. And the question for me at least and many others both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, is to make savings in the defense budget. I think savings is the key word here, since our military is doing things for other countries that those countries could do for themselves. And that there things in America where our military perhaps should be doing more. Like in Central America, to use as an example.

And when I’m talking about savings in the defense budget, I look at developed countries, large developed countries, that no longer need us to defend them. Like in Europe, especially in Germany and then go to Saudi Arabia and then move over to Japan and Korea. We’re already making savings in Iraq and Afghanistan, by turning over the defense and the main responsibility for those countries defense to Iraq and Afghanistan. But we’re no longer going to have to spend, borrow really, a hundred-billion dollars a year to defend the Iraq. A country of thirty-million people that is roughly the size of California physically.

So when I’m looking at making savings in the U.S. defense budget as a Liberal Hawk lets say, I’m looking at areas where we don’t need to spending any money at all. Like defending developed countries, or developing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, who both have emerging militaries that are ready to defend their own countries. The Iraqi Military right now is fighting and defeating ISIS in their own country. And speaking of ISIS, that is not where we should cutting the budget. But instead investing whatever we need to, to make sure that Iraq and Syria, don’t become what Afghanistan was for the Taliban in the 1990s. Their own terrorist state.

America, should stop defending countries that can defend themselves. We should be helping countries that want to be our partners, but are currently poor and aren’t available to completely defend themselves. I believe Columbia would fall into that category. Perhaps Mexico as well at least when it comes to corruption. Iraq and Afghanistan, still need us to assist them and give them resources to defend themselves. That their military and law enforcement agencies can use for their own defense. And of course ISIS, we need to be a major player there from the air. With our partners on the ground from NATO and the Arab League, taking it to ISIS on the ground to defeat them. And if we need to aid our partners on the ground in that war, we should be doing that.

So when it comes to the defense budget. Sure, eliminate fighters jets that don’t either work, or are no longer needed. Eliminate bases that we no longer need. But if we want to make real savings in the defense budget to cut our debt and deficit, look to developing countries that we’re responsible for defending. Stop going to war on the credit card. Especially wars that we don’t have to fight. Require Congress and the Administration to pay for all of our military operations. But don’t do these things and not still do what America needs to defend itself. Don’t cut the military budget simply because it’s so big and so much bigger than any other military budget in the world. And invest in the military where we need new resources to keep our country as safe as possible. Like dealing with ISIS and making sure our neighbors are doing their part to keep terrorism out of the neighborhood.

Life & Liberty Magazine: David Housholder Interviewing Gary Johnson (2012)

Source:The New Democrat

Any chance I get to speak out and speak up for liberalism, I do that and that is exactly what this opportunity here is. Which is what I’m going to do in speaking out for liberal internationalism. David Housholder, a self-described liberal-libertarian, I guess interviewing Gary Johnson, back in 2012 about foreign affairs and national security. Governor Johnson, I at least believe he fits that same label. And I add liberal to that, because he doesn’t bash government. And say government has practically no role in serving people in need. But takes more of a federalist approach to those issues. And is not even against a strong national defense, or an isolationist. But believes America can’t defend the world by ourselves and that our partners need to contribute to that defense as well.

I haven’t seen many speeches and ideas from Gary Johnson when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But what I get from this interview back in 2012 on these issues is that we aren’t that much different, but I’m going to add a few things to it. Like with Europe and why isn’t Europe defending itself, instead of Americans taxpayers having to pay for that. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, which already has one of the largest and most developed militaries in the world. Japan and Korea, two of the largest economies in the world and two of the most developed economies in the world. And yet American taxpayers have to pay for the defense of both of those countries. That defense, should be the key word here. Protecting our own first. Working with our allies when issues like innocent people being murdered by their own government, or being invaded by a predatory country.

Not that I’m in favor of adopting the Scandinavian, or European social democratic economic model, but a big reason why their welfare states are so generous, is because they spend so little on national defense. Why is that? Because America at the expense of American taxpayers has Europe’s back when it comes to national defense. Same thing with Japan as well. We should be moving past NATO and instead Europe should develop their own European Defense Force as either part of the European Union, or some new federal European state. And be the main provider for their own defense. And that would mean they would need to spend 3-4% of their own resources to do this. Which would be an economic boom for them and allow for them to bring their unemployment way down. America, Canada, Turkey, the Slavic states not including Russia, could still be major partners with Europe.

I believe the main difference between the liberal internationalist model when it comes to foreign policy and national security and the neoconservative model and the libertarian-socialist model, comes to use of force.

Neoconservatives, base their foreign policy and national security policy almost if not squarely on the use of force. They believe you always have to sound tough and be able to back up your verbal toughness. That there’s nothing that America can’t do by itself when it comes to the military. That money is no object even debt and deficits when it comes to national security. You spend whatever it takes at all costs and then perhaps figure out how to pay for that spending down the road.

Then you move over to the libertarian-socialist model when it comes to foreign policy and national security. Combine former U.S. Representative’s Ron Paul with Dennis Kucinich, they were actually friends in Congress and worked with each other on these issues. You combine Libertarians with Social Democrats, or Socialists and you have a libertarian-socialist dovish isolationist foreign policy. Where they believe America could do well by cutting our national defense by 2/3 if not more. Libertarians, would use that money to get rid of the income tax. Socialists, would use that money to bring the Scandinavian welfare state to America. And we wouldn’t even work with our allies when there’s horrible human rights crisis’s around the world. Other than maybe supplying humanitarian aid to certain countries.

What the Liberal-Internationalist says and I’m one and so was Jack Kennedy, my political hero and a lot of other Liberal Democrats were and are, is that you have to be strong both at home and abroad. But that your partners have to play their part as well. They either pay you for their defense, or they invest their own resources to defend themselves. So yes, pull all of our Americans troops and bases out of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. Or have them pay us for their defense. But you don’t act just because you’re strong enough to act. You act when your national security is at stake. When human rights are being abused like a lot of people being murdered. When you can play a positive difference. And you work with your allies when the situations come up. The differences between Smart Power, which is what liberal internationalism is. Versus shoot first and ask questions later. The neoconservative model. And No Power, the dovish isolationist model.

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: Your Right to Die Isn’t Enough

Source:The New Democrat

Euthanasia, is a tough issue for me. We’re not just talking about suicide here, but someone getting legal help from not just someone else to kill them, but getting that help from someone whose sworn to protect life. And do whatever they can to save people who are hurt. And in many cases where their life is at risk and they can die if they don’t get the proper medical treatment.

But I’ve never said that I believe in an absolute Right to Life. Besides, my definition to Right to Life, is a bit different from lets say a devout Catholic, or Evangelical. My Right to Life is about the individual. That they’re responsible for the management of their own life and held accountable for good and bad exactly how they live their life and the impact that they make on others. My Right to Life, or belief in it, is conditional, to be blunt about it. That once a person becomes a person, meaning they’re born, they’re responsible for their own life and can live their own live anyway they choose. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

And because of this as a Liberal, I can say, you what this is your life. How you decide to live is up to you and you’re going to be held accountable for exactly how you live for good, bad an in between. Which is why I can say as a Liberal that I believe physician assisted suicide, should be an option for people who are terminally ill. Or in such bad shape that it’s just not that they’ll never recover, but they’ll be in some type of horrible pain regardless of the amount of medication that they have access for the rest of their lives. But I’m a Liberal, not a Libertarian, or an Anarchist. And I believe there also needs to be rules in place for exactly how physician assisted suicide could be carried out. To protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

One, a patient who is in real bad shape physically and suffering a lot, or not, whether they’ve essentially been given a death sentence from their doctor, or not, would need a doctor’s written consent to be put to death. Doctors shouldn’t be forced to deliver this procedure, especially if they’re against it.

Two, someone who is contemplating physician assisted suicide, needs to either facing a death sentence. Meaning they’ve been told they only have a certain amount of time to live and they’ll be in pain for the rest of their life. Or, they’re such in bad shape that they could theoretically live a natural life in years, but will be in serious pain for the rest of their life.

Three, the patient is in solid mental health and think clearly and knows exactly what they’re doing. That they’re in the best mental health that they possibly can be. So they don’t make a horrible mistake that they’ll never recover from.

Four, they’re 21, or over. Minors, should not only be able to make this decision for themselves, but not even be able to make this decision with parental consent.

Five, that the patient informs their family that they’ve decided to end their life. So they know what’s going on here with their relative. Even if they are not physically and emotionally close with that person.

Again, physician assisted suicide, should be a tough issue for anyone whose either on the fence on it, or thinks it should be an option for people. Because we are talking about ending the life of someone who hasn’t even been accused of hurting an innocent person. But for me at least as a Liberal, the Right to Life belongs to the individual. And they have that right until they lose it. And for me that even includes the right to take that life under the conditions that I’ve laid out.

Prakash RP: A Defence of Communism-

Source: Communist Party USA- No thanks to communism! 

Source:The New Democrat

Communism, at least in how its been practiced up until the last thirty-years, or so with the Soviet Union collapsing and the People’s Republic of China moving to a form of state capitalism and the same thing with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba, has been a government philosophy built around a big centralized state. That the central state, is the country and owns the country and everyone inside of the country are essentially subjects of the central state. With the central state being responsible for the welfare of the people and taking care of the people. While at the same time preserving the communist state. Even if that means locking people up and killing them if they are seen as threats to the communist regime.

Now if this if the definition of communism, then I believe only a Communist, or Marxist could defend that. But lets say I’m wrong about what communism is and I don’t consider myself to be an expert on communism. And that it really is something a lot more positive than that. And a communist state, is not what we’ve seen North Korea collapse into. Keep in mind, the word communist comes from community. It that a country is a community and that members of that community share with each other for the betterment of society as a whole. So no one has to go with out, or has too much. And that the central government, is in charge of making sure that everyone has what they need to live well in that community. That they have enough money, food, housing, health care, education, etc.

But if my second definition of communism is correct and the first one is wrong, then what makes communism better, or different from socialism? If the difference between a Communist and Socialist, that the Socialist tends to be more democratically oriented? That they believe in multi-party systems and elections? A list of both welfare and individual rights and that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs? That the Communist, believes in the welfare of their people and that everyone should be taken care of. But is so in love with themselves and their political system, that they believe they are entitled to absolute power and don’t deserve to have any opposition whatsoever?

If I’m wrong about the differences between a Socialist and I mean Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to use as an example and a Marxist like Fidel Castro, or someone like that and that Communists, do believe in at least a certain level of both personal and economic autonomy, which means freedom at least in America, then why do you need both socialism and communism, if they’re the same thing? And I welcome anyone who actually understands communism to answer them on this piece. My guess is they aren’t the same thing. That their good reasons to be a Socialist, because again Socialists believe in at least a certain level of democracy and freedom. Both personal and economic freedom. As we see with Bernie Sanders and social democracies in Europe.
Web of Stories: Jacek Kuron- The Idealized World of Communism

Patrick J. Buchanan: The GOP’s Iran Dilemma

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with Pat Buchanan, who seems to be getting more sane and intelligent as he gets older. The way I would put it, is that President Obama and perhaps intentionally, has boxed the Republican Party, especially Congress in. House and Senate Republicans, could try to kill the Iranian Nuclear Deal and lose anyway. Because there’s no way that they’ll be able to override a presidential veto on this. With only a handful of Democratic Representatives and Senators voting with Republicans on this. Or lets say it starts snowing in Houston, Texas tomorrow, keep in mind it’s still July and they did override President Obama’s veto on this and Europe, Russia and China who are all on board on this agreement, end up getting the credit for the Islamic Republic of Iran from not obtaining nuclear weapons. Even though the United States did most of the work on the deal.

If somehow Congressional Republicans actually did read the deal and figure out that Iran will be under strict observation and have international weapons inspectors on the ground in Iran, making sure that they are either complying, or reporting where the Islamic Republic is coming up short and that America can reimposed sanctions and put military options back on the table against Iran and actually decide to vote for the deal, then Republican Representatives and Senators will have to explain to their constituents why they voted to support President Obama. Someone who a lot of Republicans at least in the active base of the party consider to be an illegitimate president and perhaps even an illegal alien from Kenya. Whose legally not eligible to be President of the United States. And simply serving his Socialist-Muslim brothers and sisters in Iran.

Every time Congressional Republicans go on the official record supporting President Obama on anything major, they risk trouble at home and being primaried at home. Meaning someone from the Far-Right flank of the party, who normally couldn’t get elected to anything outside of the Bible Belt that isn’t gerrymandered, challenging a mainstream Republican in Congress in the next election. Politically, I believe the only option that Congressional Republicans have here, is to vote against the deal, watch it go through after President Obama successful vetoes it and hold oversight hearings on it in the House and Senate to see how its working. But one of the brilliances of this deal with Iran is the politics of it. Republicans, could vote for it and risk problems in their own party. Vote against it and watch President Obama and Secretary John Kerry, Europe, Russia and China take credit for it.

Movie Zya: The Graduate (1967)

Source:The New Democrat

I saw The Graduate for the fourth, or fifth time Sunday morning. Not exactly keeping count. When I was killing time and waiting to meet a friend that I got together very early with on Sunday. My friend and I had this little minor debate going on whether, or not Anne Bancroft, who I think is the star of this movie, whether she is overrated in this movie. This movie, is Ann Bancroft’s defining role. She is known as Mrs. Robinson and for very good reasons. Because she played a beautiful, sexy, very cute, witty, intelligent, seductress who knew exactly what she wanted and what she didn’t want. And how to get what she wanted and stop what she didn’t want.

My friend and I, off an on, the last couple of weeks, have been discussing whether Anne is overrated physically, or not. I agree with my friend, that she’s not the best looking women of the 1960s, or from her generation lets say. But I haven’t heard anyone suggest that she is. But she was a very cute, beautiful, sexy women and a hell of an actress and her role and how she played it, is critical to this movie. It’s the Dustin Hoffman character, not the actor, but Ben Braddock, who I’m not impressed with. He’s just graduated from college with a college degree. And has no idea what the hell he wants to do with his life. He sort of has the personality of a hit man. Someone who speaks in very short if not one word sentences. Who prefers to be by himself, someone what emotionally distant and doesn’t show much if any emotion.

And that is pretty much what makes The Graduate work. A beautiful sexy cute witty intelligent women, in Mrs. Robinson, who is not happy with her marriage and perhaps life in general. Who uses Ben Braddock, who is lost and doesn’t know where he’s going, to fill whatever void that she has with her husband. Which is physical attraction, attention, sex, the feeling that she’s still beautiful and sexy. Which of course she is, but perhaps her husband, played by Murray Hamilton, has lost something perhaps downstairs and up. But the thing is, the people around Ben, his family actually do care about him and want him to be happy and they along with Mr. Robinson, set up Ben with the Robinson’s daughter. Elaine Robinson, played by the beautiful and adorable Katharine Ross.

That is pretty much how this movie goes. Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben to date her daughter. She wants Ben as his sex partner and doesn’t believe Ben is good enough for his daughter. But the date goes on anyway and Ben at first tries to comply with Mrs. Robinson and intentionally makes the date horrible for Elaine and is distant the whole time and takes her to a strip club even. Great way to lose a date if that is your goal, but discovers that he’s been a real asshole, to be blunt about it. And that he’s really hurt Elaine who didn’t deserve it. And tries to make it up to her and they have a really good date after that.

Again, Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben with her daughter. To the point that she tells her about the actual affair that she had with Ben. And even goes to far and tells Elaine, that Ben raped her. Which of course didn’t happen. And Elaine dumps him and goes away for graduate school and Ben spends the rest of the movie trying to win her back. The first forty-five minutes of this movie, are very good and very funny. Mrs. Robinson, tries to seduce Ben two times and swings and misses. Ben, probably feeling way to guilty to take her up on her very generous offer. The third pitch, is thrown by Ben this time and he offers himself to her and invites her to a hotel. This is a great movie about people who aren’t very happy with themselves. And don’t know where they’re going until they get there.

Reason: Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg: Gary Johnson on Donald Trump, Presidential Election & Life as a Pot Company CEO

Source:The New Democrat

Gary Johnson, should run for president, because there’s a reasonable chance he would actually be in the general presidential debates next year. Because there’s a movement to expand the presidential debates and allow for third-party candidates. But even if he weren’t able to get into the general debates, we could see presidential debates next year made up of the third-party candidates taking on each other. And we could see at least one broadcast network picking them up. These are things that the Democratic-Republican Presidential Debate Commission, I mean the Federal Presidential Debate Commission, are considering right now.

As far as Gary Johnson for president, I said this four years ago. But I believe he would make a great Liberal Democratic presidential candidate. And people told me he was a Republican and yes it gets cold in the North Pole. But stating the obvious doesn’t accomplish anything here and that’s not my point anyway. As he said in the interview with Nick Gillespie and he put it that most Americans tend to be rabidly liberal on social issues and fiscally conservative. The way I would phrase it, is that Americans tend not to want big government in either their wallets, or their personal lives. We don’t want government to direct how we live our own individual lives. Just regulate how we interact with each other. Prevent us from hurting innocent people and catch and punish us when we do. Something the Far-Right and Far-Left in America, will probably never understand.

What that means is that Americans want presidential candidates who know who they are for one. Gary Johnson, obviously knows that with a twenty year record of supporting both economic and personal freedom in America. And two, Americans want presidential candidates who speak for them and to them. They’re looking for a presidential candidate who doesn’t tell them what they want to hear and then governs in a different way. But someone who knows who they are says what they believe that brings a lot of Americans behind them. And won’t try to take their personal, or economic freedom from them. If anything, would expand both personal and economic freedom. And instead stop people who hurt innocent people.

Most Americans, probably think of Liberal Democrats as people who campaign to get the Washington Redskins to change their nickname. Or campaign to get talk radio show host and other commentators that don’t like, from being able to say their piece. Who campaign for censorship against the opposition. Or try to outlaw products that are unhealthy for us. Who want women to not be treated equally as men, but better. Who think Americans, tend to be stupid and need a big government to protect us from ourselves and run our lives for us. Who want speech that offends them to be censored if not outlawed. But the Democratic Party, has a growing movement of actual Liberals, who don’t believe in any of those things. Who don’t identify as libertarian, but don’t want big government in our economic, or personal affairs, or in our mouths try to shut us up when we say something offensive.

Gary Johnson, doesn’t want to end the safety net, or legalize all current illegal drugs in America. He just wants to get America’s national debt under control and be able to balance the budget at some point. And to allow for Americans to live freely and is someone who could speak to this growing movement of Americans who believe in similar things. And this movement includes Liberal Democrats such as myself. I don’t have any illusions here. If Gary were to run for president, the Far-Left would beat him up. And I’m not sure he would have the adequate resources to be able to defend himself. At least not early on, but he’s someone who speaks for a lot of Americans. Including young Democrats who manage, or run business’s now. Who love personal freedom, but doesn’t want big government running their business for them either. Which is why he would make a great presidential candidate.

The New Republic: David Dayen: Bernie Sanders & Martin O’Malley Failed Their Black Lives Matter Test

Source:The New Democrat

First of all, its great to hear a politician go to a political group and event and tell them what they don’t want to hear. Especially when they are right and knowing that it might hurt them for speaking the truth. Which is what Martin O’Malley did at Net Roots Nation when he said “all lives matter”, instead of Black lives matter. Which is what the Far-Left wing of the party wants all Democrats to say. As if it is not obvious enough that Black lives matter. As if anyone is arguing that Black lives don’t matter. Which no offense, is a borderline brain-dead thing to say and imply. Which is one reason why people who are pushing this Black lives matter theme, are on the Far-Left. Senator Bernie Sanders, instead of saying Black lives matter, instead dodged the question and tried to get back on economics.

Again, all lives matter. And to even say that is an idea of how stupid this whole discussion is and some of the people in the whole so-called Black Lives Matter movement are acting. Instead of talking about the challenges and issues that the African-American community are facing and offering solutions to discuss them, they pull out a strawman that no one can disagree with. None of the Democrats running for president are running to be president of this American group, or that one. They’re running to be President of the United States. Which covers the whole nation, even if they win the Democratic nomination, elected President and don’t win every single vote and state in the country. They’ll still be President of the United States. And not the Caucasian President, or African President, Asian President, Latino President, or any other President of one group, or one group.

Republicans and for good reason, all the time get accused of creating wedge issues to divide the country. And try to make Democrats look like they don’t love America as much as Republicans do. And you know the issues. It was crime in the 1970s, followed by abortion, pornography, homosexuality and other issues. But the whole so-called Black Live Matter movement is doing the same thing, but from the Far-Left. And if you don’t say Black lives matter and instead say all lives matter, regardless of race, or color, they imply you don’t care about the African-American community and minorities as much as they do. Which is really stupid and also insulting. Instead of saying Black lives matter, as if people believe they don’t, they should be addressing the issues and offering solutions to those problems.

Radical Films: Video: Let it Burn

Source:The New Democrat

It’s good to hear a prominent African-American leader support the Right to Self-Defense. Especially with Robert Williams being on the New-Left, or Far-Left in America and a self-described Communist. And I say that, because if there’s one large population in America that has suffered a lot of violence and abuse against them, it’s the African-American community in America. If there’s one community that deserves that right more than anyone else, it would be this community. And I tend to fall on the side of the Martin King social democratic wing of the civil rights movement. But its easy to see why people who have suffered so much against them, would want and need the Right to Self-Defense.

The civil rights movement in America, was multi-racial and multi-political as far as ideology. You had a pacifist social democratic wing in it. Led by Dr. King and his organization. You had a liberal wing that was always talking about self-empowerment and empowering African-Americans to take control of their lives. That also believed in the Right to Self-Defense, led by Malcolm X. And you had a New-Left wing, Communist even, that believed in Black Power and part of that power was using violence against violence and self-protection and defense. Led by the Black Panther Party and many other groups on the New-Left in America.

It sounds like to me that Rob Williams, became more radical as he left America for Cuba in the 1960s. He was President of the NAACP in North Carolina. The NAACP, is a mainstream center-left organization. That is about racial-equality and other issues. It is not a group of Socialists and Communists by in large. And perhaps Williams got tired of all the violence and racism that he was seeing in America and believed he was being persecuted by the U.S. Government. And decided that he needed to change his politics and needed a different approach to take on racism in America and push for racial-equality.

The Week: Ryu Spaeth: Is To Kill a Mockingbird Racist?

Source:The New Democrat

I saw the To Kill a Mockingbird movie last night in preparation for this piece. And I’ve seen it before, the last time probably five years ago. And I haven’t actually read the book, so I can’t comment on that intelligently. But the movie, even though it certainly shows racist characters, it’s certainly not a racist movie. If Ryu Spaeth, is asking whether the To Kill a Mockingbird movie is racist, with all due respect, that is a silly question. It is about a young African-American man in the deep South in the 1963s, who is falsely accused of murdering a young Caucasian women. And the defendant, being represented by a good veteran Caucasian lawyer, who not only knows his client is innocent based on the evidence, but does what he can to get him acquitted.

Now where is the racism in this movie? This movie is about a town in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Where the people there are not well-educated and struggling just to survive. Where the town is overwhelming Caucasian and probably Anglo-Saxon at that and who probably sees African-Americans and that is not what they called Black people back then, but they saw Africans as their ancestors who owned African slaves did. As animals and property, not as human beings. And yet one of the members of this community is falsely accused of raping a young Caucasian women and one of the members of this Anglo-Saxon community, does whatever he can to defend Tom Robinson. An African-American man accused of raping a young Caucasian women.

The To Kill a Mockingbird movie, is about the times, essentially. What life was like in very rural Alabama in the 1930s for both Caucasian and African people in this community. And racism, is obviously a factor here, like it was everywhere else in the country and perhaps a bigger problem in Alabama and the deep South in general. But this movie doesn’t make one community look better than another community, or members of one community look better than another, simply because of their race. This movie was about showing what life was like for people in this community in the 1930s. And how justice was carried out and how the community responded when one of their members accuses someone of seriously hurting them. Nothing racist about that.

Mysteries & Scandals Bugsy Siegel

Source:The New Democrat

I saw the movie Bugsy a few nights ago for like the hundredth time, or whatever. It is one of my favorite movies and what I get from Warren Beatty as Bugsy and from what I know about Bugsy, is that Beatty did a great job playing Bugsy. And had Bugsy decided to give up the mob, which is almost impossible to do, but lets believe in Santa Clause for a second and say he was able to do that, Hollywood would’ve been perfect for him. As either an actor himself, playing gangsters, but with his personality and humor, he would’ve been able to do other things.

There’s this saying that the friendship between Ben Siegel and actor George Raft, is that Benny, was a mobster that wanted to be an actor. And George, was an actor that wanted to be a mobster. Which is why George Raft got so many gangster roles as an actor and actually got tired of that and wanted to do something else. And if you see The George Raft Story, a movie about the life of guess who, that movie makes it clear that Raft was tired of playing gangsters and wanted to do other things. Ben Siegel as an actor, probably would’ve had a similar career as his buddy George Raft. I mean, he was a Jewish gangster and one of the most successful ones.

I believe the legacy, or at least the positive side of Ben Siegel’s legacy is what we see as Las Vegas today. Before Ben Siegel, Las Vegas was essentially a hick Southwestern town of about ten-thousand people or so. Today, it’s a town of over five-hundred and eighty-thousand people and an area of about two-million people. It is one of the biggest and most economically successful cities in America today. And a lot of that has to with the casino and gambling industry. Siegel, didn’t put all that together himself. But he had the vision that others used to build Las Vegas in what it could be. A great big city where people from all over the country and even world, could go to and have a great time. All of that got started with Ben Siegel.