Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Monday, November 30, 2015

Conservable Economist: Opinion: Timothy Taylor: Capitalism for Growth, Government for Fairness

Conservable Economist: Opinion: Timothy Taylor: Capitalism for Growth, Government for Fairness

You need a healthy private enterprise capitalist economic system for any economy to do well. That has been proven for a hundred-years now. Marxist state-control of the economy simply doesn't work. A big reason why the Soviet Union collapsed is that they ran out of money and their republics wanted a different life for themselves free from Moscow's central planning and economic control. The People's Republic of China, figured that out as well forty-years ago and moved to a more private enterprise economic system. And the same thing with Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba ten years ago under Marxist dictator Fidel Castro.

So the question is not whether you should have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not, but what type of private enterprise system you should have. And what is the role of your national government in the economy to make sure that as many people as possible have the tools that they need to do well in live on their own and paying taxes and not just payroll taxes so when people are struggling, you have the resources to help out the people who truly need it. Instead of having a superstate designed to take care of physically and mentally able people. Who could take care of themselves if only given the opportunity.

You don't want government managing industries. You don't want government doing practically nothing either. You don't companies to be able to legally pollute the air and water, or pass those costs onto taxpayers. Or get away with not paying their workers for the work that they do. You also don't want taxes so high that encourages people not to work and be successful at work. What you do want is as many people as possible to be as economically successful as they can be. You want to encourage people to finish and further their education.

You want to encourage people to do well at work. The larger your middle and upper classes are and the lower your low-income class is, the stronger economy you'll have. Because the more people you'll have that can afford to purchase the products they make. Pay their bills, have a good time like vacationing and eating out and so-forth, putting money away and the stronger economic growth that you'll have.

The reason why I believe in limited government is because I only want government what it should do based on what its good at and what we need it to do. Government, should just be a referee, national insurance system and investor. Laying out the rules for how companies and individuals should relate to each other and the people who work for them and their consumers. But not try to run their business for them.

An insurance system for people who truly need and are out-of-work. Help them get back on their feet and get a good job, but not try to manage their lives for them. Investing in things like education, infrastructure, trade, job trading, people, by empowering people in need to get themselves on their own feet. The more people you have doing well in your economy, the stronger your economy will be, because of all of the workers and customers that you'll have who are independent, on their own and living in freedom and not off of government.

Anglophenia: Siobhan Thompson- How to Insult Like The British


This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Anglophenia: Siobhan Thompson- How to Insult Like The British

I couldn't swear like a Brit to save my life or someone else's, being an American and everything, Being of German background and just outside of Washington in Maryland I have a hard time making my voice sound that snobby and Anglo-Saxon formal. I tend to sound more like I'm from Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia, than Connecticut, or London. If I was told I wouldn't have to die if I could swear just once like a Brit, I would probably ask what's the least painful way you can kill me. But I know how to make fun of the Brits, especially the snobby English who look down at people who drive BMW's as being poor. Since we have so many English-Americans in America especially on the East Coast and in New England.

What can I say about Britain? I hate the food, the weather, the socialism, collectivism in general, their top-down big unitarian London knows best for everyone else in the United Kingdom kind of government. But similar to Ireland, their women sound good and their people are very funny. Watching Prime Ministers Questions is probably as funny as watching Saturday Night Live. Of course SNL has been going downhill since the mid-1990s or so, but PMQ has been going uphill. If American politicians could insult like British politicians, maybe our politicians would be as popular as personal injury attorney's and door to door life insurance salesman. Because the Brits do it in a way where even the person on the other side has to laugh at them self.

Britain, similar to Florida except without the great weather, food, hot Latin women, is a great place to see and visit, but not somewhere I would want to live. But a place where you could have a great time as a foreign visitor and get around, if you can remember the steering wheel is on the right side of vehicle, or I guess machine in Britain. And have a great time laughing even at yourself as an English person tells you how much you suck and makes you laugh in the process. But one of those countries where I think I might try to learn how to swim three-thousand miles back to Washington if I couldn't catch a flight, or boat, perhaps a car that swims, after a few days. Because of the rain and preppy snobby attitude.

New York Daily News: Opinion: S.E. Cupp: Breaking up With The Constitution

New York Daily News: Opinion: S.E. Cupp: Breaking up With The Constitution

Damn! I agree with S.E. Cupp on something. Perhaps its time to reëxamine my political beliefs and news opinions. No, not really, but she makes a great point here about the Republican Party and two of their, to be nice eccentric presidential candidates in Donald Trump and Ben Carson. I say on a regular basis as a Democrat that I miss the days of Newt Gingrich. Forget about Ronald Reagan, I would just like to go back to the mid and late 1990s with Newt.

Because as partisan as Newt was he’s also a very intelligent man and someone who not just believes in government, but knows how to govern. He knew he had a Democratic president, he knew he had fairly small Republicans majorities in the House and that Senate Republicans had tight majorities as well. Meaning that there was only so much that Congressional Republicans could do by themselves with a Democratic president and tight majorities in Congress. Yes, Speaker Newt Gingrich did shutdown the Federal Government in 1995, because he couldn’t sit with President Clinton on Air Force One. But he learned from his mistakes and they passed Welfare to Work together in 1996.

But forget about Newt for a minute. It would be nice just to go back to 2011-12 and instead of hearing Republicans talking about threat of Islam inside of America and having the U.S. Government trample the First Amendment and our Freedom of Religion, something that Republicans say they support, but would have the Feds break into Mosques and round Muslims and Arabs in general like the Japanese, Italians and Germans were in World War II, we would hear Republicans claiming to be Constitutional Conservatives.

Even with all of their new big government constitutional amendments to the Constitution. (Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum come to mind) Like putting the Federal Government in charge of marriage and what people can watch on TV and do in their free times. At least they were talking about the Constitution. And again in Newt’s case he actually understands the Constitution. But at least the GOP was talking about the importance of the Constitution and claiming to support it. Even as they were proposing to rewrite it even in the same speech. Like with Representative Bachmann, when she announced for president in the summer of 2011. And calling same-sex marriage a threat to national security. At least she claimed to love the Constitution.

But no! We can’t even have the good ole days of big government Republicans proposing to outlaw same-sex marriage and pornography and even gambling from the Federal level. They’ve gotten even crazier with The Donald and Dr. Ben, proposing to close down Mosques, round-up Arabs and tell college students what they can think and hear while they’re at college. Speaking of political correctness and fascism, that is what it looks like from the Far-Right in America. The GOP, the party of religious freedom, just as long as they agree with your religion and your religious beliefs. At least with the Far-Right.

S.E. Cupp, is a true Conservative and so is Senator Rand Paul and several others in Congress, because they not just believe in the Constitution, but understand what they actually believe. With Donald Trump, 2016 is about his latest realty TV show or documentary called, Who Wants Donald Trump For President? In a theater or on a TV near you in 2017. With Ben Carson, welcome back to the 1950s and giving Joe McCarthy a good name by comparison. The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, would be shitting asteroids if they saw what some of the Republican presidential candidates were proposing today.

Mal Partisan: Our American Republic- The Federalists

I believe the way the American federal liberal democratic republic was formed is based on what we were before the United States was created and what our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) wanted to escape from. The United Kingdom as it is today, but lot freer now than it was in the 1770s, was a unitarian big government authoritarian monarchy. Britain, still is a unitarian big government monarchy, but now with a social democratic feel to it where governmental authority now rests with civilians and no longer the monarchy.

But in the 1770s the U.K. had a authoritarian London knows best about everything big unitarian government. With England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the American Colonies, having very little if any say in their own state domestic affairs. The Founding American Liberals, wanted to move away from that top-down big government approach. And create a system where the states would have a lot more say in what goes on in their own states. Which is why the Federal American Republic was created to create a country where so much power was not in the hands of one central national authority. But where the states would have real authority over their own affairs.

Federalism, is not anti-government and even anti-federal government. The opposites are actually true. With federalism you get a set of rules and real governing guidelines for what the Federal Government can do, what it should and certain things that only it can do. Like defending the country, regulating interstate commerce, prosecuting interstate crimes, foreign policy, national infrastructure. But where the states and localities are responsible for what goes on in their own jurisdictions. Short of being under attack from a foreign power, or handling their own currency and things that only the Feds should be doing.

And even though federalism is not anti-government, it is anti-big government and anti-socialist. Because America will probably never have that top-down big centralized unitarian government, where so much power both economic and social, is centralized under the control of the national government. With so many so programs designed to take care of the people for themselves. Giving people the freedom not to responsible for themselves. Which is what is common in Britain and Scandinavia. What it says is that in a huge diverse country like America states should be responsible for what happens in their own states, because they are on the ground and know what's going on. The Feds can play a constructive role and assist, but not be there to run the program for each and every state. And the federal system has worked very well for us most of our history.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

NBA-TV: Kobe Bryant Retiring From The NBA After 2015-16 Season: Kobe Bryant's Time Has Come

NBA-TV: Kobe Bryant Retiring From The NBA After 2015-16 Season: Kobe Bryant's Time Has Come

Probably easy to say this now, but Kobe Bryant’s time to retire from the NBA has been here for a while. And it was really just about him finally seeing that and deciding to give up what has been one of the great NBA careers of all-time. As far as what he’s personally accomplished and what the Los Angeles Lakers have accomplished with him. At least arguably the team of the 2000s winning four NBA Finals and six Western Conference Finals. The player of the 2000s at least if not post-Michael Jordan. 2008 MVP, 11 times All-NBA First team. But the Lakers haven’t made the NBA Playoffs since 2012 and have been pretty bad since. Actually being the second best team not just in Los Angeles, but at Staples Center with the Clippers becoming a real force in the NBA. Yes the Clippers and you’re not seeing that, because you’re high right now. Either on Red Bull, or something illegal.

Kobe, has been beat up the last few seasons, because of age and so many miles that he’s piled up on the NBA court which takes a toll on anyone’s body even great players who accomplish superhuman feats. So Kobe I believe is late on this and the Lakers still aren’t very good and again looking like one of the worst teams in the NBA at 2-13 right now. Headed to their fourth straight non-playoff season in a league where 8-15 teams make the playoffs in each conference. All you have to do is be mediocre to make the NBA Playoffs and the Lakers aren’t even that right now. So as great of a career that Kobe has had and I at least believe the best player post-Michael Jordan, at least in the 2000s. But not the greatest Los Angeles Laker ever. Both Kareem and Magic are better, but it has been time for Kobe to call it a career.

I grew up watching NBA basketball in the 1980s just outside of Washington with the Lakers being my second team behind the Wizards, who were called the Bullets back then. And fell out of love with the Lakers when they signed Shaquille O’Neal and went to a more ball control half court style of offense. Which was common for most NBA teams in the 1990s. But I’ve always have a lot of respect for Kobe Bryant, because he was truly a great player and not just a great talent. He was a gentlemen and professional basketball player in an era of realty TV and pop culture celebrity wannabes who played basketball really just to get on ESPN Sportscenter, be celebrated online and further their NBA careers. Kobe, is very similar to Tim Duncan in how he presents himself as the constant professional who lets his game speak for itself. He was a great player who would have thrived in the NBA hey day of the 1980s just like Big Tim and will be surely missed.



Saturday, November 28, 2015

The Daily Conversation: Bernie vs Hillary On The Issues

Bernie vs Hillary
The Daily Conversation: Bernie vs Hillary On The Issues

The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton? Well which Hillary Clinton are you talking about. 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, hopefully not as Secretary of State. Don’t want 2016 to be about Libya for her, assuming she is the Democratic nominee for president. I actually like the 2015-16 Hillary quite a bit. She’s even now in favor of legalizing marijuana at least at the state level. Has publicly admitted that the Iraq War was a mistake, even if she privately knew that in 2006.

The 2015-16 Hillary looks like the Pragmatic Progressive. But I still prefer the Progressive With Results from Martin O’Malley. And if he can ever get a non-relative to endorse him for president and give his campaign money, he might still make a run for the Democratic nomination. Because he’s already accomplished as Governor of Maryland what Bernie and Hillary say they want to do, but have never actually accomplished anything.

With Bernie Sanders, like him, dislike him, hate him, love him, terrified of him and would never want to let him see your wallet and financial information for fear that all of your money would suddenly disappear after Uncle Sam takes what he wants from you, you have to at least respect him. Because here’s a real-life politician not a made up Hollywood politician, but a real-life human being and politician at the same time, (which might be a newsflash for a lot of Americans) who actually knows what he believes and says what he thinks. For the most part.

I mean free college, free health care, free health insurance, I think he’s at least smart enough to know that people will have to pay for all of their new government services and that of course they won’t be free. These will not be Christmas presents from their rich Uncle Bernie. But their Socialist Uncle Sam, or Bernie, who’ll have new taxes to pay for these services. Two guarantees in life, death and taxes, at least in America. And taxes are bills that Americans have to pay to get the free government services. Free government services is like trying to take a bath with dirt and playing football in the bathtub. It simply doesn’t exist for anyone whose a taxpayer.

Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders, to me at least looks like Bill Clinton vs George McGovern, or Jerry Brown, from back in Jerry’s hippie radical days in the 1960s and early 70s. Hard to imagine that once Bernie after he finally picks a number by how much he wants to expand the Federal Government in size and in money, assuming that ever happens, that he could beat Hillary anywhere outside of New England and San Francisco. And perhaps just Vermont and San Francisco. Too bad for Bernie that New York City is not a state, because maybe he could beat Hillary there.

Because Americans and even Democrats, are learning that to create all the new big government that Senator Sanders wants to create, the rich won’t pay for all of that. Their money will be in other countries even before some committee in Congress like Ways and Means, or Finance, looks at his proposals. So of course the middle class Americans will get stuck with the tax bills for all of these new programs. Hillary, is already scoring against Bernie in the debates on this. About whose going to pay to being Sweden to America. Hillary can say, “I have friends in Congress both in the Senate and House who I’ve worked with on these issues in both parties. And we can work together on these issues.” With Bernie it will an all or nothing approach that will die in Congress faster than a constitutional amendment to repeal both the first and second amendments.



Friday, November 27, 2015

The Richest: The Worst Black Friday Disasters

The Richest: The Worst Black Friday Disasters

Black Friday, the official start of the Christmas shopping season in America and as someone who has some experience working in retail I know how crazy it can be. It is that one day of the year where Americans can go crazy and not look crazy, because they must have whatever the current OMG product is out there. Generally having something to do with new technology. And if they don’t get that product, they’ll look like so old school, or 2014 or whatever the year is compared with people who already have that new smart phone, iPad, or whatever the hell it is. It is that one day of the year that people find great deals on stuff that they don’t need and buy it. To wake up the next day to figure out they don’t want or need whatever the thing is that they just found a great deal on. And besides, what they just bought is already old school compared with whatever the latest thing is.

It is that day of the year where people can camp out the night before so they’re in at Best Buy, Macy’s, or whatever the store is, the second it opens and be able to buy whatever they think they’re looking for at that second, to find out they don’t want it, or need it when they get home. Or perhaps its a present and they think to them self, “why would this person want this.” Black Friday, is 21st Century pop and valley culture gone wild, where everyone has that one day to be more like whatever their favorite current celebrity is until they find a new one the next day. Despite all the stupidity that comes from Black Friday with all the faddism that comes from it, as someone smart once said and I’m paraphrasing, but that idiots are useful. Black Friday, puts money in people’s wallets, saves people money if they spend their money wisely on stuff they can actually use and need and it also creates a lot of jobs. Things that we still need a lot of as a country.

For Social Justice Warriors, (speaking of useful idiots) Black Friday is not a racist holiday. It is not some racial slur at African-Americans and anyone else of African descent. It is also not some day that promotes economic greed and the weakness’ of private enterprise, capitalism and corporate greed. It is a great use to the American economy, because it creates jobs and keeps business’s successful. It puts money in average Americans wallets and saves money for a lot of Americans who spend the day wisely. Yes, private business’s end up doing very well on this day, but that’s called private enterprise and capitalism. And workers and consumers don’t do well when business’s don’t do well. These things go together. And someone not a fan of this system should explain what they would do differently. Perhaps try to find some state-run business that has real competition that does well on Black Friday. Or Rainbow Friday, or whatever the politically correct term would be for it.



Thursday, November 26, 2015

Julie Partney: Thanksgiving- A Politically Incorrect Guide

Julie Partney: Thanksgiving- A Politically Incorrect Guide

To start off on a positive note before I send everyone to back the Great Depression. Actually, it won’t be that bad, but I just want to say Happy Thanksgiving to everyone who doesn’t view this great American holiday as a racist holiday. For the rest of you, please seek help and perhaps smoke a joint and learn to relax. But to the Social Justice Warriors, Canada which many Progressives or Social Democrats celebrate as some great utopian social democratic utopia, celebrates Thanksgiving. So who are the racists now? America, or Canada, perhaps both in a Social Justice Warrior’s peanut-sized brain. Thanksgiving, is not about celebrating the Europeans victory over the Indians. But celebrating what we all have to be thankful for.

Thanksgiving, is really one of those handful of holidays that we have in America where families get together and drive each other crazy. Leaving people to remember why they haven’t seen their uncle in a whole year. Perhaps brother, sister, aunt, in-laws, parents even. As well as to remember how thankful they are to have relatives that will drive them crazy. Not to get drunk and celebrate European victory over the Indians. This is a great holiday a day when Americans can feel proud to eat, drink, watch football all day, not bother to exercise. Not a day to celebrate the fact that Europeans conquered America and left the Indians to live on reservations. By the way, American-Indians are free to live with other Americans in America. European and otherwise.

Thanksgiving, is that great American holiday that actually brings Americans together in a very divided country. Where people who believe Barack Obama is destroying America, break bread with people who believe minorities are entitled not to be offended. People who believe that ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act its supporters such as myself, is a Marxist government takeover of the health care system, can break bread with people who believe the ACA is a good thing and will make the American health care system look like Germany. Where you have to cover your own health care costs, but get to choose how you pay for it with a market of different health insurers. This is not a holiday to jump into an American-Indian’s face and say, “ha! We won and you lost!” If there is one holiday that should unite all Americans that everyone can take one day off and just relax and enjoy themselves and give thanks, its Thanksgiving.



Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Washington Free Beacon: ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos- Bernie Sanders Says He Would Raise Taxes On All Americans

Socialist Tax & Spender!
ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, with his questioning here did a very good job at getting Senator Bernie Sanders to admit that everyone’s taxes will have to go up if you want to pay for all the Senator’s new Federal programs without borrowing the money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China. Because we’re talking about trillions of new Federal spending to pay for his new programs. Medicare For All alone, would be a couple trillion a year. Because now the U.S. Government would become the sole provider for health insurance in America. We have a population now pushing three-hundred and twenty-million people and we’re only getting bigger.

And Senator Sanders can say he wants to tax the rich all he wants to pay for his programs. But if somehow we did see a hurricane in Minnesota tomorrow, in November by the way and Democrats not just win back Congress, but most of those new Democratic Senators and Representatives are at least as far to the left as Senator Sanders, the rich won’t pay most of those new taxes. Why? Because most of them can afford to live in other countries where they wouldn’t have to pay 60, 70, or 80 percent, or whatever the new top tax rate would be under a President Sanders. Plus on top of that all of their subsidies disappearing as well.

So who gets stuck paying for all of President Sanders free government programs? The people who are supposed to benefit from them. Middle class Americans for the most part who can’t afford a sharp tax attorney to can find them all sorts of tax breaks. And can’t afford any new tax hikes right now even with the payroll tax. Bernie, wouldn’t have to raise payroll taxes to guarantee Family and Medical Leave. He could get a bill passed out of Congress. an institution he’s very familiar with serving now almost twenty-five years there. That says all employers, or at least all employers with income’s of a certain amount have to give all of their employees Paid Family and Medical Leave. Of course middle class taxes would go up under a President Sanders and he’s at least smart enough to understand that.

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer: Freedom of Speech- What is Your Opinion?

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer: Freedom of Speech- What is Your Opinion?

I believe college campus's perhaps especially in the Northeast, is the perfect place to ask people what they think about free speech. And perhaps requiring all college students to pass a course on free speech and the U.S. Constitution in order to graduate might also be a good idea. Because with what seems to be their lack of familiarity with both right now. With 2-5 Millennial's now believing that free speech shouldn't protect people's rights to offend minorities and perhaps people in general.

We saw that in this video with one female student, but with another one saying he's against gun rights, but supports a person's freedom to offend. Which I thought was pretty interesting, because generally when someone is that far in one direction in one issue, they won't support freedom when it comes to another individual rights issue like speech. The only way you learn anything from anybody is for all of us to have that constitutional right to express ourselves. You learn what others think and what they know and don't know and they learn from you. You also learn things about yourself. Like where you do well and where you need to improve.

The only thing you get from fascism whether its Marxism on the Far-Left, or religious extremism on the Far-Right is what the central state approves of whether they're right or wrong. They'll only tell you what you what they want you to hear. Liberal democracy, liberal societies, liberal states, free societies, are not meant to be nice, or mean. They're meant to be free and meant to be real. You have the freedom over your own life and even what you say and what you think. But so does everyone else and we all have the right to tell others what we think about what they say.



The National Interest: Opinion: Peter Harris: Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism and Current World Crises

President Barack Obama, United States
The National Interest: Opinion: Peter Harris: Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism and Current World Crises

To put it mildly the world is a lot more complicated now and the developed world which is mostly in the West is different now and less united than it once was. America and Europe, still believe in great liberal values like freedom of speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, personal freedom, self-ownership, the ability for one to live freely and make a good life for themselves and basic human rights and civil liberties. And even though we’re no longer fighting Marxism and Communism in general at least in the traditional sense, the West is dealing with a different type of authoritarianism that in many cases is not state-sponsored and organized from some authoritarian state.

Islamism, and private Islamist groups, have now replaced Marxism as the main competitor when it comes to liberalism and liberal values. The liberal order, to use a German term, is now facing Islamism as its main enemy when it comes to whether countries are going to live in free societies that are governed responsibly. Or are they going to live in the stone ages where women, gays and non-Muslims are treated like second or third-class citizens and even prisoners. The West and their Arab allies, haven’t figured out how to deal with Islamism and ISIS effectively yet. For one, a lot of those Arab states don’t believe in liberal values and human rights and are just looking to protect their own authoritarian regimes and monarchies, but don’t want to move to some fourth or fifth-world theocracy. The other being the West, America and Europe, aren’t sure about how much they are willing to invest to fight ISIS in Arabia.

This is a different battle or war taking on Islamism than the Cold War. During the Cold War, the main and really only major enemy to America and Europe was Russia and their Marxist Soviet Union. The People’s Republic of China, was still a very poor Marxist society similar to North Korea today for most of the Cold War. With Islamism, it’s not countries that we have to fight for the most part. But groups and groups powerful enough to knock out weak government’s and states and take at least part for their land. As they’ve done in both Iraq and Syria. But the only way you defeat a group like ISIS is through a strong broad committed coalition, which is what liberal internationalism is. That is going to go in and take on ISIS until they’ve defeated them. If you want to protect liberal democracy, liberal values and free societies, you have to fight for them and be united behind that.





The Washington Post: RFK Stadium- Past, Present, Future?

The Washington Football Factory!
The Washington Post: RFK Stadium- Past, Present, Future?

I’m not an architect obviously, but one of the great things about RFK Stadium is that it wouldn’t have to be torn down. It is on a great property and piece of land and what the Redskins are flirting with right now is simply renovating it, or rebuilding it. But knocking out the skyboxes and press box level and the upper deck. Leaving in the lower bowl with those flexible seats that go up and down and then adding new decks of seats on top of the lower bowl and building a much larger stadium. Somewhere ninety-thousand seats or so, because Washington is big wealthy city in a huge wealthy market that loves their Redskins even when they’re losing. The future of the Redskins is not in Landover, or North Virginia, but in downtown Washington at the new RFK which would be right at where the current RFK is.

Worst case scenario, the city knocks down the current RFK, but rebuilds a new one on the same site, but that has about twice as many seats and perhaps a retractable roof on top and bring the Super Bowl to the nation’s capital for the first time ever. Which is long overdue considering how great a city market this is. Which the new RFK hosting college football and even bowl games, perhaps even bowl playoff games, perhaps the Maryland Terrapins would play Navy and Virginia every year. Maybe Penn State every other year. As well as a lot of other events during the NFL offseason to keep the money coming into this new huge stadium. That could become the best downtown big city football stadium in America and give Washington something New York doesn’t have. Which is a downtown NFL stadium to call its own.

I’m lucky being born and growing up watching football when I did. Because I remember all three Super Bowl Championships the Redskins won, plus the one they lost to the Los Angeles Raiders. So I know RFK Stadium very well and how much it has meant to this great franchise. Where it was probably the toughest place to win a road game at least in the NFC East in the 1980s, if not the NFC and NFL as well. Because Washington sports fans are so loyal to their winners and so crazy when the Redskins win to the point that opposing head coach has to ask the referee to tell the fans to shut up so his team can hear the plays and be able to talk to his team. That has been missing ever since the Redskins left RFK for Landover, but is something that the Redskins and should bring back. And be used to return the Redskins back to being an annual winner and championship contender. Which is where Washington expects the Redskins to be.



Tuesday, November 24, 2015

History Comes to Life: Biography With Mike Wallace- The Amazing Grace Kelly, in 1963

The Amazing Grace!
History Comes to Life: Biography With Mike Wallace- The Amazing Grace Kelly, in 1963

I don’t know of a another women where the name and word Grace better fits than Grace Kelley. Their parents named her perfectly and I’m not sure there’s a women who looks more like a princess than Grace Kelly. Perhaps Queen Noor of Jordan, who I believe at least is a better looking Goddess than Grace, looks more like a princess. The only word I have for Grace Kelly is more. I wish she was in Hollywood longer and did more films and perhaps worked in television where there would have been so much great work for her in either. And I wish she had lived longer, because similar to Diana Dors, (speaking of goddess’ and princess’s) they both died in their early fifties. Two Hollywood Goddess’s from the Silent Generation, both dying in their early fifties and both women by most accounts living responsible lives. And not big consumers of alcohol and other drugs.

Grace, was a great actress, with a great face, great voice, very charming, good sense of humor. Never looks more than half her age with one of the sweetest baby-faces and voices you would ever see and hear. Who was in great Alfred Hitchcock movies like To Catch a Thief and Rear Window. Where she was the lead actress in both movies where when you see her in those movies it was hard to concentrate on anyone else. Because she was so sweet and well, graceful and just grabbed your attention and made it difficult for you to think about anything else. In the chase scene in To Catch a Thief where she’s driving with Cary Grant, she looks like a teenage girl going out for a drive with her daddy. That is how sweet she always was and never did anything to suggest she wasn’t that sweet in real-life and not just fooling people with her appearance.

Grace Kelly, not the sexiest actress of all-time and not very sexy compared with a lot of other Hollywood Goddess’s and I believe, because she had a tendency to come off as a kid, because she was so adorable. But other than Elizabeth Taylor I believe Grace is the best actress of her generation. Someone who would have remained a star through the 1960s and even longer than that had she simply wanted that. But I guess it is hard to turn down the opportunity to be a European princess especially in a beautiful country like Monaco. And again she was a women who looked like a princess and had the personality to match. She was someone of many talents including that as an actress and I wish she just had done that a lot longer.



Adam Kokesh: Is Taxation Theft?

People who believe taxation if theft, I would have to imagine at least don't believe in notion of government and society, at least the idea of a country. If you believe in having a government and a country then those things have to be funded. And who best to fund them than the people who receive those services. If taxation is theft, than so are dues that you pay at a club, or a union that you're a member of. Because those organizations take your money as well and you don't get to decide generally how much you're going to pay them. They do that for you. 

Someone could say that people choose whether or not to join clubs, so they're choosing to pay those dues, because they've made a choice to join that club. But we also choose what country we live in. Or at least what country we want to live in and then the country decides for itself who should and shouldn't live there. If you think taxation is not theft, try finding a free developed country that doesn't have taxation. You might have the same luck finding a club that doesn't have dues. Someone has to pay the bills and again who more qualified than the people who receive the services of the club and government. 

In the video several people correctly answered the question what is theft. Taking what doesn't belong to you without your permission. If taxation is then so is club dues. When you choose to live in a country or be a member of a club you're also choosing to follow the rules of the club and the country. Paying your bills are one of those rules. You don't like the rules of the club or country, well in free societies you can work to change the rules. Demand lower taxes and dues. Vote out people who you believe tax you too much. Vote in people you believe will cut or eliminate your taxes. But as long as you're a member of the club or country you play by the rules, or deal with the consequences. 

Marmar: Rita Hayworth 1967 Interview- Still The Love Goddess

The Love Goddess!
Marmar: Rita Hayworth 1967 Interview- Still The Love Goddess

The only thing that I would have liked to seen more with Rita Hayworth is Rita in color. She is truly special to look at and to listen to, but black and white simply doesn’t do her justice. I saw They Came to Condura with Rita, Gary Cooper and several others last night and she’s in her early forties at this point, but she still had everything including the great voice, face, hair and body. And was still a hell of an actress. And stick her with a group of U.S. Army soldiers in the Mexican desert where there isn’t another women for perhaps hundred of miles and they haven’t drank or smoked in days and they got this red-hot Spanish goddess with them whose technically their prisoner and guys could end up doing things they wouldn’t normally do when they’re living in much better living conditions.

I made this point before, Rita Hayworth was made for color TV and film and I just wish she became a star in the 1960s, or even 1950s. She was a constant entertainer and goddess that had put guys in sweet dreams for weeks even if they were at war. Even this 1967 TV interview when of course color TV and film were common if not standard by then, was shot in black and white. But again because of how gorgeous and cute she was with that great voice, very similar to Raquel Welch, you can still see how great she was even in black and white and even in her late forties when she was no longer the top Hollywood Goddess in popularity, or perhaps anything else. But she still had it and was still able to grab people’s attention and focus on her.


Brookings Institution: Fix Gov- Molly E. Reynolds: Can Speaker Paul Ryan Keep His Promise of Amendment Opportunities For the Rank and File?

House Republican Leadership
Brookings Institution: Fix Gov- Molly E. Reynolds: Can Speaker Paul Ryan Keep His Promise of Amendment Opportunities For the Rank and File?

Warning! This piece may come off as inside Congress and the beltway wonky for all of you non-political junkies who have better things to do than follow Washington politics. Especially if you’re currently sober.

Generally speaking except when I’m trying to get somewhere, I love living just outside of Washington in Bethesda, Maryland. I’ve lived here my whole live and wouldn’t live somewhere else if someone paid me to leave. But this is probably why I’m such a political junky to the point where I can actually name all one-hundred U.S. Senators and most of the key U.S. Representatives. Even when a lot of Americans couldn’t name their own Senators and Representative even if you spotted them the last names. I love Congress and love following Congress especially the Senate, but the House is fascinating as well. Which is why I’m writing a piece on how to reform the House of Representatives.

One thing that Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can agree on for the remainder of this Congress and future Congress’s, is that the House is broken. Both parties have continually broken into it (pun intended) and have almost destroyed it. And a big part of why it’s so partisan has to do with how the majority treats the minority. House Democrats, didn’t ask for much if any input from House Republicans when they were in charge. And continually wrote bills in the House Democratic Leadership room. Bypassing even their own committee chairman, let alone the Republican Leadership. So House Republican couldn’t even attempt to amend bills. As well as Moderate Democratic members who were actually interested in getting reelected and didn’t want to vote for something that could hurt them at home.

House Republicans, in the last two Congress’s under Speaker Boehner, have been a little better and have at least allowed for bills to come out of committee and have some amendment votes on bills. Not saying the House should become the Senate and adopt come super majority requirement for bills to get passed. But if I’m Speaker of the House, (that idea scares me more than you) I would want members of my caucus to weigh in on bills. Especially my committee chairman, so my members feels they have a real role in how the House works. But also if I need their votes on controversial legislation, they can say back home that they offered their amendments, but didn’t have the votes for them. And had to vote for the next best thing. Or they can say they made the bills better, because their amendments passed.

You also want the minority to not only be able to offer amendments to bill in committee and mark bills up in committee and not just send them to floor without even a hearing. Especially on the minority leadership to put pressure on them to offer ideas and alternatives. So you could say, “you don’t like what we’re doing, what would you do instead?” Put some responsibility on them to offer their own ideas and vision. Which would also give you opportunities to hit them back and not always be on defense when the House is debating bills on the floor. And when reelection season comes, you’ll have an opportunity to explain why their agenda isn’t good and why they shouldn’t be back in the majority.

Again not saying the House should become the Senate with unlimited debate short of 3-5 majority and all of that. With all the hot air that comes out of Senate filibusters, who needs summer in Washington? But in a couple of areas where the House should become like the Senate has to do with how committees operate and bills are written. All major legislation should go through committees. Where the chairman write bills along with their members and when the chairman and ranking members don’t agree on what the final bill should be they can both write their own relevant bill to whatever the issue that they’re considering is. And then let the rank in file decide who has the better bill. And offer their own amendments as well.

The House floor should work the same way. Where the Majority Leader brings up bills that have been passed out of committee and then when the Minority Leader and the minority caucus doesn’t like the majority bill and they haven’t reached a compromise on what the bill should be, the Minority Leader or their designee should be able to offer a substitute to the majority bill. When the two-party leaders disagree. And again let the members decide who has the better bill. And not just do this in this Congress, but make these rule changes permanent so both parties whether they’re in the majority, or minority can have a stake in the game. And the ability to legislate and offer their own ideas.

Speaker Paul Ryan, who ideologically I don’t agree with him on much other than how government should help the poor and empower them to take control over their own lives, I believe truly believes in the notion that the U.S. House should be a battle place of ideas. A competition where both Democrats and Republicans can offer their own visions for the country and then let the country decide who has the better vision. And not just on the campaign trail, but on the House floor and in committee as well. Probably more than even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who rarely if ever allowed for amendments to bills except when they were bipartisan. A reform approach like this would make the House work better, because now they would be debating ideas and visions. Instead of who wants to destroy America first. And the country would better off as a result.


Monday, November 23, 2015

In These Times: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: My Vision For Democratic Socialism in America

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont
In These Times: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: My Vision For Democratic Socialism in America

What Senator Bernie Sanders laid out in his socialism speech is what I’ve argued that democratic socialism is. Not Marxism and economic state-ownership, but a large social insurance system better known as a welfare state to go along with the private enterprise economy. So people can get help when they fall down and for people who struggle they can get help getting by. As well as help to meet their basic economic needs. Like health care, education, health insurance, childcare, to use as examples.

Keep in mind, nothing that government does in a free society is free. Especially socialism and that all of these new government social programs like college, childcare, to use as examples, would all come with a cost. A big cost in taxes especially in new payroll taxes, but perhaps a cost in higher income taxes across the board. The idea that the bottom ten-percent income tax rate could stay that way in American social democracy, not likely. There’s only so much the wealthy are willing to pay to pay for other people’s lives. What Senator Sanders is arguing for is to bring Sweden and the Nordic social democratic economic model to America.

The difference between democratic socialism and Marxism, is that in a social democracy, the economy is in private hands. Meaning business’s and industries and people own their own property and even business’s. But again with a welfare state to insure that no one has to go without in the private enterprise system. In a Marxist system, the state meaning the central government, owns everything. The means of production in society, as well as all other property. With no guaranteed individual rights other than being taken care of by the state. But as every Marxist state that this world has ever seen, the people generally aren’t taken care, because of badly the state manages the economy. What Senator Sanders wants to create is a large welfare and regulatory state, to go with a welfare state. On top of the private enterprise system.

American Thinker: Opinion: Mark Musser: From Marxism/Communism to Post-Modern Leftist Fascism

Marxists
American Thinker: Opinion: Mark Musser: From Marxism/Communism to Post-Modern Leftist Fascism

Equating liberalism with communism and Marxism, is like equating Christian-Conservatism with libertarianism. Why, because Marxism and liberalism, are very different, but both on the Left. Libertarianism and Christian-Conservatism, very different, but both on the Right. Better comparisons here would be to compare liberalism and libertarianism, because they are both about liberty and the individual. But go about in different ways. Liberals, want to use a limited government to help create a society where everyone can thrive. Through things like education and infrastructure. Libertarians, practically see any government as a form of big government.

Marxism and Christian-Conservatism, are both different. For one, Marxists don't believe in any religion and religion would either be illegal, or under strict controls in a Marxist State. But they're both fascist in the sense that they both believe in their views and values so much that they believe any opposition would just be dangerous for society and shouldn't be tolerated. To go against a Marxist or Christian Theocratic State, should be subjected to death. Not that different if at all from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So if you're on the Right and lets with the Tea Party, or way over on the Right and believe America should all get into a national time machine and go back to 1915 or something and Modern America looks more alien to you than Latinos, or women not only voting, but working, if you're going to equate Marxists with Liberals, look out for yourself being compared with Theocrats and even Islamists. Who believe individualism is dangerous and freedom to assemble, protest, form oppositions, are immoral and everything else. That people being free to be themselves and live their own lives is as immoral as raping a kid or something. In a fascist's mind.

Marxists, are fascists who are so full of themselves who kiss the mirror every time they're in the bathroom. Who thinks anyone who disagrees with them should be shot or something. Liberals, believe in free speech. After all we created it, along with the U.S. Constitution. And we believe in liberty and individualism, which are the opposites of Marxists. Who believe they know best how everyone should live and think and that it is the job of government to take care of everyone for everyone. But Marxist superstate and a theocratic superstate, are very similar in the sense that they see individualism as dangerous. Which is why they both believe in big government so much.


The National Interest: Opinion: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Needs a Reboot

The National Interest: Opinion: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Needs a Reboot

You can't be both a Neoconservative who wants America to police the world mostly if not completely by ourselves and be a fiscal Conservative who puts real limits on what government can do. Who doesn't want to consistently be borrowing money, running up deficits and expects government to pay for most if not all of its government operations as least when times are good. Speaking as a non-fiscal conservative, but fiscal Conservatives prioritize government spending. They lay out what is the money coming in and figure out exactly what government needs to do and then they pay for it.

A Progressive, is different and would try to figure out exactly what government should do without putting many if any limits on it and try to figure out how to pay for it. Even if that requires borrowing the money. Same thing with Neoconservatives who actually tend to be somewhat progressive when it comes to economic policy. George W. Bush in the 2000s, is an example of that. Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, who wanted to use government to move people out of poverty through work and job training. And encourage business's to hire people on Welfare. Speaker Paul Ryan, very similar today.

So if you just look at foreign policy and national security from a fiscal conservative point of view and not from a liberal internationalist or smart power point of view, or even a dovish perspective, having American taxpayers pay for the national security of other developed countries who can economically afford and have the population to defend themselves, doesn't make good fiscal sense, or even national security sense. Also it is not just American taxpayers who pay for other developed countries national defense in taxes. They also pay for it in higher interest rates because of the national debt and that we borrow from countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan, to defend them.

Out of all the Republican presidential candidates, maybe three of them are actually fiscal Conservatives. In party that is supposed to be a conservative party. And I'm thinking Senator Rand Paul, Governor John Kasich and perhaps Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, wants to spend another trillion-dollars on national defense and invest even more money in having America try to defend Europe for Europe and Arabia for Arabia, Japan for Japan and South Korea for South Korea. All of the countries are developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia and South Korea, already have two of the largest militaries and defense budgets in the world. The European Union if they were a country, their economy would be roughly the size of the United States. How come they can't pay for their own national defense? They can, but have chosen not to. Why pay for your own defense, when someone else does that for you. The mind of a Socialist I guess.

America, can't afford to have a small military and defense budget, but we sure as hell can't afford to police the world ourselves. Especially when we're stuck with a twenty-trillion-dollar national debt and we're borrowing money from countries in order to defend the countries that we're borrowing money from. For America to be as secure as possible, financially, economically and security, other countries especially Europe, has to at least play their own part when it comes to their own national defense, as well as dealing with international challenges when they come as well like Syria and Iraq. Socialism, is cheap when you don't have to pay for your own security. Europe, would be a lot less socialist if they had to pay for their own defense and not expect America to do that for them.





The Onion: Socialism Vs. Capitalism: How About Democratic Socialism vs. Objectivism

The Onion: Socialism Vs. Capitalism: How About Democratic Socialism vs. Objectivism

Just to be serious for a minute or so and risk losing viewers who are expecting nothing but laughs from me and for me to be an asshole. Socialism vs capitalism, is not a real debate. Socialism, is a broad collectivist political philosophy. Capitalism, is an individualist economic system that every developed country in the world has a version of including social democracies. Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden, go down the line. The amount of major countries in the world that don’t have a capitalist system, you can now count on one hand and perhaps not need a second finger. Just chop off the other four, or save yourself from some extreme pain and point out North Korea and perhaps Syria. While you hold your other fingers down. This should really be capitalism vs Marxism, or capitalism, vs Communism.

So let’s try it this way and compare democratic socialism and use perhaps Bernie Sanders as the elected leader and not Marxist dictator. Versus what I at least call Randism, that I personally named after Ayn Rand and name Ayn their leader. You should’ve seen the ceremony, because it was beautiful. No one forced Ayn to show up, because she’s an objectivist and showed up voluntarily.

You have Democratic Socialists who say that the state or society as a whole is the most important thing. And because of that you can’t let people to be free and as individualist as they want. Because some people are just better and more productive than others, which will make the poor and ignorant look even worst and hurt their self-esteem. They say what we should do is have a big central state and not even have states and localities with much power over their own affairs either. Because if they’re free to do well than others will be free to struggle. And one part of country will be doing very well, because they know how to educate, how to build, how to regulate, how to tax and everything else. While other parts of the country will have central planners who don’t do much else than planning screw ups. And their people will suffer as a result. So you need a big central state to run things from government central to take care of the nation.

And then you have Randian’s or Libertarians, or Objectivists. Who say, “what’s mine is all mine! And anything that government take is a form of theft! And any type of regulation is a form of imprisonment.” So in a Randian system, government doesn’t tax or regulate. Just arrests criminals and imprisons them. (I guess after a fair trial) And protects the country when it’s under attack. How they even pay for that? Your guess is as good as mine. They would say tariffs, but Randian’s also believe in free trade and part of free trade is low tariffs. In a Randian system, instead of government trying to do practically everything for everybody, short of running business’s, government does practically nothing for no one. Except when a someone becomes a victim of a predator.

So you have Democratic Socialists who say that the collective is more important than the individual. They say you can’t have people living for themselves and showing everybody how much smarter, more productive and cooler they are than Joe and Jane Average, as well as Tom and Mary Below Average, and John and Susan Moron. They say what instead society should do in a Democratic Socialist’s mind is say that at the very least Bob and Anne Rich, should take care of the Average’s, the Below Average’s and the Moron’s, because they can afford to. That if you encourage people to become independent of the state as far as trying to succeed financially, then that is exactly what will happen. So you need big government to step in and prevent that from happening so everyone is taken care of.

With the Randian’s saying, “of course we want to be free on their own! And is someone falls down, people especially Bob and Anne Rich and other Rich’s, will step in and take care of the people who fall on hard times.’ Democratic socialism, is not the ultimate of collectivist economic systems. But only Marxism beats it when it comes to collectivism. Randism, is not the most individualist of economic systems, but anarchism beats it. But Democratic socialism and Randism, are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Democratic socialism, has at least one thing on Randism, it has been tried and still in use in the world with success. Randism, well there might be more Randians than Marxists right now, but a squirrel is bigger than a mouse, so what. I’m not a fan of either, but they’re both fascinating to follow.


Sunday, November 22, 2015

The Washington Post: Opinion: George Will: On American Campuses, Freedom From Speech

The Washington Post: Opinion: George Will: On American Campuses, Freedom From Speech

I believe getting on people for what Halloween costumes college students is the last straw at least for me when it comes to the whole free speech debate on campus and off campus as well. As far as how stupid this whole debate is. We now have a generation of Americans who don't know how to relax and take a joke. Not sure they can even deliver a joke as well. We have a generation of tight assess. I wasn't a fan of the Millennial Generation ten years ago. I saw them as superficial, technology, social media and celebrity news obsessed assholes. Who were experts on everything that is meaningless and unimportant, but had a hard time coming up with the name of their own U.S. Representative, or Senator, let alone whose the mayor of their hometown. And perhaps would struggle to name all fifty-states. Spotting them their own state wouldn't be enough help for them.

I still see as Millennial's as superficial tight asses. But it gets worst, because now they have some view that it is now their mission in life to deny all minorities from having to hear, read, or deal with anything that may offend them. Apparently being not so bright they haven't figured out that they still live in America and if they don't like free speech, perhaps going to college in Cuba, (if the Cubans would take them) would be a better place for them to go to school. Perhaps they would actually learn something down there. Or maybe they would just miss being able to make their own decisions and holding protests on campus without first getting approval not from the President of the school, but from the President of the Communist Republic. America is not safe zone for opposition and critical speech that may offend people who can't take a joke, or handle the truth.

College, is a place for learning, developing and experiencing. So you have some idea what life is like when you're in the real world and not everything is given to you and you have to work and earn everything that you get. Where not everyone is going to be nice to you and always tell you how great you are. That place is called America and in America, Americans have the right to be themselves and express themselves. Let people know what they think of them and be positive about people. As well as let people know when they come up short. In a liberal democracy we have the right to express ourselves about anything we want to. But with what comes with that is being accountable for what we say based on what other think about our views. But also what others about us as people and they might not always be nice. America is not a great place for oversensitive tight asses who can't take a joke, or criticism. And hopefully the Millennial Generation is still young enough to learn that.


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Universal Vision: Real Time With Bill Maher- Racism in America

Universal Vision: Real Time With Bill Maher- Racism in America

Instead of trying to take fascist unconstitutional actions like trying to ban free speech on campus, or anywhere else in America, how about we ban Red Bull, Starbucks, every other coffee-house and alcohol in America. And instead legalize pot so students can learn how to chill. Then we’ll see who really wants to go to college in America and as a result we would save a lot of money in student debt. Especially for people who perhaps the only thing they got out of their student debt was how to protest and bitch about nothing. College students, should just relax and realize they live in a society where not everyone loves them. And when they do see racist behavior, especially crimes, they should report them to the appropriate authorities. With those authorities acting appropriately.

Racism, is not the issue in America. A blind racist could see that there’s racism in America. I guess now I’ll get hate email about making fund of blind people and perhaps even blind racists. The question is what can we do and what should we do about it. And when you live in a liberal democracy where everyone is guaranteed a constitutional right to free speech, not a hell of a lot can be done as far trying to close the mouths of stupid people. We have to let them be stupid and make assholes out of themselves and laugh like hell, because of how incredibly stupid they are. While at the same time teaching kids who haven’t graduated with a degree in stupidity yet about how to treat people. Especially people you don’t know and may not look and sound like you.

The only cure for racism when it comes to speech and thought is education and commentary. If it is possible to teach a bigot how dumb they are by all means try, but if not make an example of them and show other people who have a full brain why you don’t want to be like that asshole. The only thing that political correctness and fascism in general does is piss people off. Even people who aren’t bigots, because when even stupid people lose their free speech protections, that puts everyone else’s free speech in jeopardy. So at the end of the day assholes are to be made fun of and made examples of. And the uneducated should be educated which cuts down on future stupidity.


Reason: Zach Weissmueller & Jim Epstein: Comedy, Outrage and College: What We Saw at The Can We Take a Joke?

Gilbert Gottfried!
Reason: Zach Weissmueller & Jim Epstein: Comedy, Outrage and College: What We Saw at The Can We Take a Joke?

One of the comedians up there, I think it was the female comedian there said and I'm paraphrasing that people have to realize what humor and a jokes are. Unless you're a Socialist, or something humor and entertainment is exactly that. You're not trying to change the world simply with entertainment, but comment on in a humorous way what you see in the world. And a smart comedian will use their humor to also inform people about what is going on, because they follow the news. And in a lot of cases talking to people who know everything about Hollywood and whose sleeping with who and what shoes someone wore when they went out to lunch, but perhaps not even sure what the capital of the state is let alone the United States. So someone like that could actually learn a lot from a smart comedian, if they bother to listen can stay off their smartphone for more than five-minutes at a time.

With free speech, bloggers and comedians might as well sell life insurance door to door. Perhaps park cars, or get some other jobs that is not nearly as much fun as parking cars and selling insurance door to door. We shouldn't have to worry that if we say this and make fun of that, then this oversensitive group or that one, will be offended. Because their blood pressure is already as high as a skyscraper, because they don't smoke pot and simply don't know how to relax. We also shouldn't have to worry about if we make fun of this or that politician or that movement, that somehow we let whatever movement that has been just offended down, setting back fifty-years or whatever. That if we make jokes about labor unions, then people will have a harder time organizing. Or if we make fun of corporations, that will damage Wall Street, or whatever.

We have a very liberal First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech in America. Without it, again comedians and bloggers might as well go work for the state, or something and retire with their pensions after twenty-years or whatever. And because little things like free speech, Right to Privacy and property rights. And because of these great liberal individual rights Americans have a lot of individual freedom in America. Even the freedom to say and do things that others may not approve of. But the people who disagree with us can privately and publicly express their disagreement with us, as well as do and say things we don't approve of. That is called liberal democracy and freedom and with what comes with those great things is also responsibility. So yeah, we have the right even to be assholes, but people have the right to tell us how big of an asshole we really are. Or even think we're assholes when the only thing we're guilty of speaking the truth.


The Weekly Standard: Opinion: Fred Barnes: "Hollywood Myth-Making and Blacklisting": Dalton Trumbo, a Victim of State-Fascism

The Weekly Standard: Opinion: Fred Barnes: "Hollywood Myth-Making and Blacklisting": Dalton Trumbo, a Victim of State-Fascism

This blog covers political correctness and how that is a threat to free speech on a regular basis. Especially in the last couple of years where political correctness had made a big comeback on the college left in America. With probably thousands of students if not more who believe that any criticism of minorities in America and even individuals is not only bigoted, but should be illegal. Which of course would be clearly unconstitutional if Congress ever passed some law protecting minorities in America from criticism through governmental force. But as most people know and believe fascism and political correctness just doesn’t come from the Far-Left and if anything has more support for it on the Far-Right. And used to put down Americans who simply see the world, country and live different lifestyles than the Christian-Right and others on the Far-Right in America.

Lets say that everything that Fred Barnes said about Dalton Trumbo is true and I’m not ready to grant him that. What was Dalton Trumbo guilty of? Failing to answer whether he was a Communist or not to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. He wasn’t even charged with being a Communist agent for Russia and working to destroy the American liberal democratic form of government, or anything like that. He was brought to HUAC simply for being under suspicion for at the very least having ties to Communists and having communist beliefs and even being a member of the Communist Party. He wasn’t charged with anything that is illegal in America. At the end of the day that is what this is about. Cold Warriors still living the Cold War wanting to eliminate communism at all costs even at the expense of rounding people up simply for having communist leanings.

I’m not a Communist obviously and I hate Communism as a political ideology and perhaps only see Islamism as a worst form of a big government statist philosophy. But to arrest someone for simply being a Communist and sharing that philosophy when they’ve done nothing illegal, is supporting something that Anti-Communists are supposed to be against. Which is big government fascism that says either you are with us hundred-percent of the time, or you’re with the enemy. Dalton Trumbo, was a Hollywood screenwriter and filmmaker who was also a member of the United States Communist Party. So what? We are a great liberal democracy with a constitutional guarantee of free speech. The most liberal free speech rights in the world, at least among large developed countries. We can are free to associate with any groups that we want as long as we aren’t involved in criminal activities.

Dalton Trumbo wasn’t brought to Congress to testify to the House about being a criminal and to talk about his criminal activities, because he wasn’t accused of being involved in any crimes. He was brought to Congress to talk about his possible membership with Communist USA. The Communist Party in America. And declined to answer whether he was a Communist or not, because he didn’t want to be charged with perjury, or have to worry about never working in Hollywood again and being blacklisted. Because the studios were scared as hell of Communists and Communism as well back in the 1940s and 1950s and didn’t want any suspicion of even being associated with Communists. Trumbo, was a Communist not a criminal and never should have been brought in front of the House to answer where he was a Communist or not in the first place.


The Onion: Nathan Eckert: The Iraq War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region & Set Off a Global Shockwave of Anti-Americanism

The Onion: Nathan Eckert: The Iraq War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region & Set Off a Global Shockwave of Anti-Americanism

Looking back at the Iraq War from over a twelve-year perspective it reminds me of someone who knows a guy down the street. Who knows this man has beaten up a lot f people and at the least is suspected of murdering some people in his home. So lets this guy Joe, decides to invade this bad guy’s home and beats lets say Tom up and holds him hostage there at Tom’s own home until a more suitable homeowner can be installed to live there and bring justice to Tom. And even though Tom’s friends come over to try to save Tom and Joe takes them out as well and in the process perhaps Tom’s wife and kids are seriously hurt if not killed in the process for being there and Joe thinking they are in the way of bringing justice to Tom. When innocent people are killed in war they are called innocent bystanders. And a cost of war.

What America did to Iraq in the spring of 2003 is what Joe did to Tom in my hypothetical. We invaded their territory and killed millions of Iraqi’s simply because they had an evil government led by an evil dictator and the Bush Administration thought (if you want to call that thinking) the price of losing innocent Iraqi lives was worth eliminating an evil dictator. Weapons of mass destruction? Well not in Iraq as it turns out, because the United Nations as well as the U.S. weapons inspectors did their jobs in the late 1990s and early 2000s and had Saddam’s weapons removed. Remember, the Iraqi Military didn’t even put up a fight against the American forces during the invasion. They all rolled over, not to get their bellies rubbed like my cat does everyday, but to surrender and not be killed.

What was all this for again? Well originally if you believe all the propaganda from the Bush Administration in 2002, it was about preventing Iraq from becoming a nuclear power and to get rid of their other WMD. Chemical weapons that Moammar Gadhafi still had and used against his own people in the Libyan Civil War of 2010-11. But Saddam no longer had weapons like that to use against Americans or Iraqis. And the worst thing about this colossal disaster, 10 on the Richter scale when it comes to the world championship of mistakes, is that the weapons inspectors were telling the Bush Administration that Saddam not only had zero nuclear weapons, but they couldn’t find other WMD as well. WMD, was an excuse for invading Tom’s home and preventing Tom from hurting and killing other innocent people in the future. But what the Bush’s really wanted to do was to eliminate Saddam and at all costs.

Seriously, who are the brainiacs who dreamed up the Iraq War? And how many weeks straight were they up drinking nothing but Red Bull and Starbucks frappuccinos developing this grand scheme of imposing liberal democracy on a society that still believed that women should always cover their faces in public and wear nothing but long black dresses and long black suits so no one can discover that they are women. As well as a country that was actually scared of freedom like an inmate whose been in prison since he was 18 and now finally getting out in his sixties being told he now has to take care of himself. I mean you don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to see flaws in this grand strategy that has more holes in it than a Chevy Caprice that is parked in Watts or Compton, California.

Iraq, is even a unique country even for Arabia and the broader Middle East. Different Arab population, as well as a country that has other major ethnic groups in it and several different religious groups. A country the size of California in the heart of the Middle East. That pre-Iraq War the only form of government they knew was life in prison. So what the Iraq War did was pardon all of these innocent prisoners who’ve all been in prison for 40-60 years and tell them, “you’re free to go and good luck to you. You’re certainly going to need it! Oh by the way, that free society we were talking about, doesn’t exist! Ha, ha! Fooled you! Yeah, no more military, or law enforcement to deal with, Just murderous thugs who kill people for the hell of it. Wish you best!”

Nathan Eckert, (assuming that is his real name. You never know with The Onion.) was damn right about the consequences of the Iraq War in the early days of it in 2003. But if you’re a Neoconservative, you only think in terms, “they are either with us, or against us! They love, or hate America.” So of course a Neoconservative wouldn’t listen to this, because in their peanut brain size mind they don’t believe in intelligence and evidence. Just neoconservative political fundamentalism. That says, “trust us, it will all work out in the end! Don’t trust the evidence, because in your heart you know we’re right!” That is not thinking, because thinking requires evidence. The Iraq War was simply based on blind faith that since the supporters of this war believed they were on the right side of history and were doing the right thing, that is all they needed. And it has been multiple trillion-dollar mistake. And has cost Iraq the country we were supposed to save, millions of their own lives.