Monday, February 29, 2016

The Blaze: Opinion- Mary Ramirez- 'I’m Done Apologizing For Being White, And You Should Be Too'

Source:The Daily Review

I feel an accusation that I'm a racist coming in the near future, because I don't see all Caucasians as racists and bigots in general, or that we have some monopoly on racism and bigotry in general in this country. But we'll wait and see.

Just to give some of my own views about race in America and as it's called. It was African-American freedom fighter Rosa Parks who had the courage and was right to stand up for her own rights not as an African-American, but simply as an American citizen in refusing to give up her bus seat to a Caucasian-American, who said 'that the only race is the human race.' Dr. Martin Luther King and his I Have a Dream speech, 'I have a dream that one day my children will grow up and not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.' I'm paraphrasing, but that is very close. The only thing I would add to that dream is that all children in America grow up and see that dream as the new reality or the new normal. In a society like that no one is judging people by race, but by character.

When I say I don't see race, I mean I don't judge people by race. Anyone can see the racial differences between Europeans, African-Asians, North Americans and everyone else. That is not the question. The question is do we judge people by the race and ethnicity that we see, or by the individual and their character and how they present themselves in life as an individual. And not just that, but I also don't identify by race and certainly not by color. Not all African-Americans have black skin. Not all Caucasians have white skin and if you look at the color of white in reality like a white t-shirt, no one has that complexion anyway. Asians whether their ancestors come from Central Asia, South Asia, or the Far-East, obviously don't have yellow skin.

So if we're going to have a conversation about race in America are we going to talk about race, or is this about color? Two different things. And to say that some people have white blood, some people have black blood and some people have brown blood. the only blood I've ever seen is red. So that's not a way to talk about race either. Barack Obama doesn't have black or white blood, but only red blood. He's not black or white, but brown. He's got Irish and American-Indian ancestry on his mother's side and Kenyan blood on his father's side. He's both an African and European-American, as well as an American-Indian. He celebrates St. Patrick's Day, because he's Irish on his mother's side. So are we talking about race, or color, or both? And when it comes to mix-race people, well they might not have one color in their complexion, but a combination of colors. Depending on the person.

When it comes to apologizing about being Caucasian or anything else, why should anyone do that? Should everyone speak out against bigots in their racial and ethnic communities when they make ignorant statements about other ethnicities and races? Of course they should if they know what that person said is bigoted. But this idea that anyone should apologize for being how they were born regardless of how they were born, their complexion, how their hair looks and how their face is shaped, etc, of course not. Why should individuals apologize for how they were born. It is one thing to denounce your own bigotry and say you were wrong about that and are now sorry for it.  But it's another to apologize for how you were born. Which is something that none of us can obviously control. We aren't born bigots. That is something that people have to learn and then accept.

The Hill: Bill Press: Who's The Real Liberal- Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Source:The Hill-
Source:The Hill 

You want to talk about European social democracy and Far-Left socialist politics in America, or do you want to talk about Center-Left pragmatic progressive and liberal politics in America? If you want democratic socialism and social democracy, Bernie Sanders other than Representative Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, hands down is the most socialist major party candidate for president ever. You can’t out socialist and socialist especially if you’re not a Socialist, which Hillary Clinton obviously isn’t. But if you want to talk about the American Center-Left which in Europe would the Center-Right and perhaps even further right like in Germany with the Free Liberal Democrats, Hillary Clinton hands down is the real and only Progressive and in the presidential race.

This is the danger with lumping in everything on the Left into one political faction and calling everybody the same thing. Communists aren’t Liberals and neither are Democratic Socialists. Liberals are people who believe in equal opportunity, rights and justice for all and individual freedom for all based on the liberal values I just mentioned. Not a big government big enough to manage people’s lives for them. Bernie Sanders and other Socialists go much further than that and say that individual freedom and rights are not enough. And believe in welfare rights based around a big centralized welfare state and that people have a right to essentially to not be poor and be taken care of with their money by government.

So of course Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders, because she’s not a Socialist. The test to see who is more progressive than the other is not this inside the beltway game about whose the furthest left. But who has stronger progressive values. Who has a better record in seeing that those values become law and come into being. Not whose going to tax and spend the most, but whose going to accomplish the policy objectives that Progressives believe in. And again hands down and even though Hillary Clinton’s only service in Congress was her eight years in the Senate which is less than a third of Bernie’s time in Congress and Bernie is in his 26th year in Congress and served in the House before the Senate, Hillary has a better record of accomplishing progressive objectives. Which is why she has so many more endorsements from actual Progressive Democrats. Like from House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn and I could go on.
MSNBC: Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton Spar Over Progressive

Friday, February 26, 2016

POLITICO Magazine: Paul Starr- 'Why Democrats Should Beware Bernie Sanders’ Socialism'

Source:POLITICO- talking about U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

"Paul Starr is professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University and co-editor of the American Prospect. His book Freedom’s Power is a history of liberalism. He was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton in 1993. 

The excitement surrounding Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid has many on the left hoping that Americans are ready to embrace socialism. That would be something. After the Republicans renominated Richard Nixon in 1968, James Reston of the New York Times called Nixon’s victory at the convention “the greatest comeback since Lazarus.” If Sanders raises socialism from the dead, that resurrection will surely top Nixon’s."

From POLITICO Magazine

The main point I get from Paul Starr’s column are the differences between socialism and liberalism. And they’re not the same thing whether you’re talking about communism which of course is different from liberalism. Because liberalism is based on individual rights and equality of opportunity. 

Communism is based on the collective and what is best is for everyone in society generally. Or democratic socialism which again is based on the collective, but through democratic means. Instead of having the state completely in control of society.

Hillary Clinton actually gave a great definition of what economic liberalism is at the South Carolina townhall on Tuesday. Where she said she wants an economy where everyone can succeed and make the most out of their potential and be able to enjoy the rewards of that. (I’m paraphrasing here, but that is very close) 

Socialists again are interested in welfare rights and the collective. An economy where no one has to go without the necessities to live well in life and where no one who works should have to live in poverty. Socialists aren’t so much interested in individual opportunity, as they are economic equality where everyone is the same and no one is rich or poor. Because they believe individual freedom leads to income inequality and people becoming super rich and they see that as bad things.

What Bernie Sanders wants to do is apply the Scandinavian economic model to the United States. The whole region of Scandinavia is roughly twenty-five-million people. With a lot of land and a lot of natural resources, including resources that Social Democrats tend not to be in favor of like oil and gas. And they invest heavily in those resources and use them to finance their welfare states. Along with high income and consumption taxes. But as Paul Starr said low taxes on capital and business, trade. 

Senator Sanders wants to bring the Scandinavian model of taxation and welfare, to a country of three-hundred-twenty-million people that still imports oil and gas to power this huge country. But have taxes in general much higher than Nordic Socialists would ever even dream of.

Socialists are interested in Utopia and creating some perfect world where there’s no such things as sickness, poverty, war, bigotry, crime, etc. 

Liberals want the real world to work for as many people as humanly possible. And for everyone to be able to live their own dream in life and be productive and live in freedom. Quality education and infrastructure for all. a tax system that encourages economic success, a safety net that empower people to get on their feet and not to live off of taxpayers indefinitely, a regulatory state that protects workers and consumers, as well as business’s from predators. But doesn’t try to protect people from themselves. 

These are the reasons why Liberals are still Center-Left in America, but Center-Right in Europe and other places. While Socialists are still considered Far-Left in America. Because of their heavy reliance on central planning and central government.

Prager U: George Will: 'A Progressive's Guide to Political Correctness'

Source:The Daily Review

I’m glad George Will didn’t use the word Liberal when talking about political correctness and blaming Liberals for political correctness. When the fact is it’s actually been real Liberals such as myself and many others, who have bashed political correctness and pounding social justice warriors with humor and obvious facts. That these social justice warriors couldn’t see if they were pounded in their face with a hammer.

I also don’t know of one damn thing that I disagree with Will in his video here. Political correctness is so much fun and easy to make fun, because it’s so stupid. Very similar to Sarah Palin. It’s almost too easy, but at the same time you can’t layoff on it, because of how creative it makes you when critiquing it and putting it down. It’s just another sign of our failing education system and the lack of intelligence with our young people and that they just go to college to become the next Che Guevara. Or whatever Far-Leftist is considered ‘like totally awesome’ at the time.

One way that I look at political correctness is that it makes everyone whose against it and in favor of free speech, but who isn’t a bigot, a comedian. Because again of how stupid it is. The idea that in a liberal democracy and perhaps the only pure liberal democracy with all the guaranteed individual rights that all Americans have including free speech, that people can’t say something, because someone might be offended by it.

In PC World, which is about the size of an ant on a football field as far as the support it has, the truth is not important. Meaning PC World and Congress, have a hell of a lot in common and party with each other every Saturday night. What’s important in PC World is people’s feelings. You can’t tell someone whose failing that they’re, well failing, because it might hurt their feelings. Even if it’s in their best interest to know they’re simply not up to the task at hand.

And the other angle that I’ve mentioned before is the pure hypocrisy of it. In PC World only minorities are entitled to not be offended. Redneck jokes are considered progressive, because if those rednecks are Caucasian, male, Christian and Anglo.Bbut African-American ghetto jokes even if they’re not about African-Americans in general, but just people from those ghettos, are considered racist. Jokes about men, are considered progressive. Unless those men are on the Left and are minorities.

But jokes against women, unless again they’re minorities and are on the Left, are considered sexist. Unless those jokes are about female right-wingers like Sarah Palin. I’m not even sure political correctness is the right term. How about the Communist Speech Control Police instead? I think that would be more accurate since we’re not talking about offensive speech, but speech that offends the Far-Left. Speech that offends New York City and San Francisco primarily.

I’m going to try to finish this on a more positive note or at least a constructive critical note. Free speech, does anyone really not know what that means? How about free expression? Any explanation needed there? The truth? Any questions on that one? Since when did these things become negative and things to look down upon? When did San Francisco and NYC get to decide what the other 290 million people in America get to say and get to think? Why should Americans fear the truth? If we don’t know where we come up short then how can we ever improve. No person is perfect and we all have things we need to improve on. And we can’t do that until we know where we come up short.

The truth should never be considered the enemy especially when it’s negative. Because it’s an opportunity for one to self-improve. And speech especially when it’s wrong is an opportunity to inform people about their ignorance and tell then what is right. Which is what would be my message to so-called political correctness warriors. What I at least call Communist speech patrol persons. I can’t say patrolman, because that might offend female PC warriors.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Young Americans For Liberty: George Carlin on Individualism

Source:The Daily Review

George Carlin, I believe was the most individualists of individualists. Perhaps not the father of individualism, but perhaps the president of it. A man who didn't play team sports, because always wanted to be himself. Imagine if we had a culture of individualists instead of a culture of faddists. Who believe there worthless or something if they don't have the latest i-phone or i-pad, or whatever the current thing is that people have to have, or you might see them inline to jump off a bridge. Because their current device is a week old instead of just buying it brand new today. George Carlin and myself, aren't against technology. I don't think he's as popular as he's today without it and I'm not doing what I'm doing without it. But he was against cloning and faddism.

People are exactly that. We all at start out in life as ourselves and what we do with that is up to us. A faddist and unfortunately I know plenty of them goes with the current trend. Whatever is considered cool or awesome. They vote for politicians, because that person is cool, or shares the same phone and watches the same programs as they do. Individualists vote for people based on who they think would be the best person for the office that they're voting on. Individuals make individual decisions. What's best for them and what they believe and what they want to do. They don't camp out at stores so they're one of the five people to have the latest whatever as soon as it goes on sale. They buy a new phone or whatever the thing is when they need one. And buy what is best for them.

If you noticed George Carlin was an individualist comedian as well. He was well-read and well-informed on the news and talked and made fun of things and people based on what he thought was important and what interest him. Not about whatever the popular subject was at the time. And was so good at what he did that he brought people to him and actually got him to think. He might be the only comedian who could get Millennial's who are interested in current affairs to put their i-phone down for more than five-minutes. Scratch that, maybe he could only do it for a minute, but in today's society that would still be impressive. Because Carlin could get people to think about things they've never thought about before and think about things they have thought about, but look at them differently. Like when it comes to politicians and blaming the voters who voted for them. And is someone who can't be replaced and is still missed.

Slate: Issac Chotiner- 'Nightmare Scenarios for the Supreme Court'

Source:Slate Magazine- "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the U.S. Capitol, Dec. 15, 2015 in Washington, D.C." From Slate Magazine.

"In light of the coming battle in the Senate over Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, I called Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an expert on the workings of Congress, and the co-author of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism.

We discussed the future of the Supreme Court, the different types of obstructionism practiced by Republicans and Democrats, and the nightmare scenarios (another court packing!) that could be in our future. The conversation has been edited and condensed.

Isaac Chotiner: Is the Republican demand that the next president, rather than Obama, appoint a replacement for Scalia really that different from other forms of obstruction we have seen from both parties?" 

"President Obama responds to Senate Republicans' claims that there will be no confirmation hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. CNN's Michelle Kosinski reports."  

Source:CNN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States

From CNN

I would love to say I’m even surprised to see Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Chairman Chuck Grassley and their flat-out obstructionism when to comes to filling Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I’m not, not even mildly so. I would be lying to the point that I was claiming I was Jesus, Moses and Karl Marx, all in the same person if I said I was surprised by the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism when it comes to President Obama’s appointments or when it comes to policy. I mean, it started in the early days of 111th Congress when Barack Obama just became President and then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a speech at I believe the Heritage Foundation and said his number one priority was to see that Barack Obama was a one term President.

But having said that lets get to the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism and again in the Senate where it started in 2009. And now it looks like the Republican Party is on a duel suicide trip with Donald Trump as their presumed presidential nominee and the Senate Republicans going into the spring and summer in a very hot and humid Washington (assuming this is a normal year) saying no to any Supreme Court nominee in 2016. Even if that person is one of their current colleagues in the Senate, or in their party like with Governor Brian Sandoval, who is a popular moderate Governor of Nevada. Who looks like a Bernie Sanders Far-Lefty compared with the Tea Party and the Far-Right in the GOP right now. But hardly any Liberal let alone a Bernie Sanders Socialist. Because the Senate GOP says that the President is a lame duck even though he has eleven months left on his current term.

I remember the 2012 presidential election. I voted and remember President Obama getting reelected overwhelmingly by five-million votes in the popular vote and roughly 320 votes in the Electoral College. I also remember my social studies classes in high school and remembering that the President of the United States serves four-year terms and no more than two. So this idea the President is a lame duck when he still has a year left on his second term just doesn’t hold. 

Imagine a baseball player singing a four-year contract and going into the spring training of his fourth year with his team and he says: "You know what, three years is enough. I’m not going to resign with you next year anyway. I’m just going to take the fourth year off. And oh by the way you have to pay me, because I signed a four-year contract." Even though the player is healthy. How would the general manager of the club react? He would probably tell the player: "You better show up and play, or you’re not going to get paid."

And as far as presidential Supreme Court appointments not getting voted on in an election year: Anthony Kennedy now Justice Kennedy was approved in 1988 by a Democratic Senate with a solid vote. Democratic Justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Republican Clarence Thomas in 1991. They were as far apart ideologically and had as little in common politically as country music fans have with hip-hop fans. And yet the Democratic Senate approved the Thomas appointment to replace Justice Marshall with a handful of Democratic Senators voting for Thomas. Which is what President Bush and the Senate Republican Leadership had to have to get Clarence Thomas through. There is no precedent for Senate Republican to sit on their asses for a year and not act on President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment. Which should be available by the early spring.

On a lighter note: imagine what the Republican Party in Washington looks like in lets say June and July. Donald Trump is their overwhelming nominee for president: the Joe McCarthy/Pat Buchanan of the Baby Boom Generation. A man claiming that Muslins don’t legally get Freedom of Religion protections and Mosques are not houses of worship. Who says he can deport eleven-million Latinos with the stroke of a pen. Who says Mexico will pay for the wall on the American-Mexican border. That women are property and that Americans don’t have right to speak out against him and I could go on, but it could get worst. And I don’t want to get stuck with someone future mental health bills, because they became depressed after reading this about The Donald. But it just gets worst, because now the GOP has The Donald and a Republican Senate sitting on their asses over a more than qualified Supreme Court nominee who got 90 plus votes to serve on the lower court.

If you’re familiar with Washington in the summer you know that it’s a hot humid place. Where we only get rain generally in between heat waves and our summers tend to start in May and go through September and sometimes even October. But with all the hot air that we simply get from Mother Nature, is a warm day at the North Pole compared with all the heat and humidity that comes from Congress alone. Especially in the Senate with the cloture rule where Senators at any time can speak until they have to go to the bathroom or fall asleep standing up. 

It’s going to be a hellish summer for the GOP and bad enough if all they have is an anti-civil liberties, anti-free speech, anti-immigrant and anti-Latino and Muslim fascist as their presidential nominee. How they deal with that plus with their twenty-four Senate seats that are up for reelection with perhaps as many as half of them in play and half of those favored to go to the Democrats. And they have to run with The Donald and try to defend in Democratic and swing states their leadership’s obstructionism over a clearly qualified Supreme Court nominee to their constituents. This will be a year to remember and forget for the GOP. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Politics of Writing: The Value of Comedy

Source:The Daily Review

I agree with most of what this blogger said. Who will go nameless simply, because the blogger doesn’t have a name. (My first joke) But I would put it different and I seem to be doing that a lot lately when I share other people’s pieces. The value of comedy is to make people laugh especially if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t going well for them.

I do that all the time to make people feel better. Someone tells me they lose their job and I’ll ask them, ‘where did you lose it? Maybe you should try to look for it. Don’t worry, you’ll find another one and a better one. And will do a better job of hanging on to it.’ And this is sort of extreme example, but that’s my point. Comedy should make people feel better even if it’s just for a moment before reality kicks back in.

I love comedy about life (as if there is any other comedy) but that is what funny people do. They share stories about what’s going on in their own life and what’s going on in the world and look for the comedic angle. Anyone whose spent more than five-minutes in America knows there’s always something to make fun of. Take our U.S. Congress to use as an example. The oldest comedy club in America and the National Comedy Club going back to 1776.

If you can’t find something funny about Congress, you either never drink, or are broth blind and death at the same time. Perhaps you live as a tomato with impersonating a human being and you’re simply not aware of the world that is right in front of your own face. Take the cloture rule in the Senate where 41 votes beats 59. Anyone familiar with math knows that 59 is more than 41. But not in the U.S. Senate and that is just one funny example about Congress.

I only thing about comedy when it comes to life and current affairs is that first it has to be funny and then it has to be accurate. Or at least not out of the ballpark where it doesn’t make sense. Like if you’re going to make a fat joke about someone, at least have the decency and intelligence to know that person is actually fat meaning clearly overweight. And not just a large muscular person who is very curvy.

There are plenty of three-hundred-pound football players who are just very big, because they have huge bones and are incredibly strong and can probably bench press someone’s car. (Hey, Yugo and Beatles are still cars) If you’re going to make a joke a politician, it should make sense and be in the ballpark. Make fun of Donald Trump, because any joke about him is probably true at this point.

When I finally get off the computer and done at my office and have some time to do things that have nothing to do with writing and blogging, generally the first thing I do is eat and try to relax. But after that I’m generally looking for something funny to watch. Not looking to read a book unless it’s something that I’m about to blog about.

Besides half of my job revolves around reading other people’s material anyway. I just want to relax and laugh at something that had nothing to do with my day and job. That is the value of comedy. That little escape that tells you that there’s another world out there that’s much different from your reality. And a chance to just kick back and take a deep breath. Before I have to get back to work.

The Book Archive: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Frances Wheen: 'Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto'

Source:The New Democrat- Communist philosopher and New-Left hero, Karl Marx.
"Karl Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. About the book:Amazon 

Marx's work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and subsequent economic thought. He is one of the founders of sociology and social science. He published numerous books during his lifetime, the most notable being The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867–1894)."

I agree with Frances Wheen about Marxism and Communism and I would put it this way. It depends on what form of Marxism and Communism that you’re talking about. Because the Soviet Union of Russia defined itself as a Marxist-Communist state where the state-owned the means of production in society with no private economy and private sector. But in actuality it was a Leninist state that went much further than that and instead outlawed not just private ownership and individuality and individual freedom all together. 

When I blog about leftist political correctness, I throw out terms like Marxist-Fascists and Marxist-Communists to describe fascism from the Far-Left. When I probably should replace Marxist, with Leninist or Castro, to describe political correctness followers on the Far-Left.

We are now down to one Leninist society in the world today. Which would be the Communist Republic of Korea, which would be North Korea and that is a good thing for the rest of the world not including North Korea. 

You could argue that we’ve never had a Marxist State in the world, at least not as far as a major country. China, really is the People’s Republic of China. They don’t have political freedom and free speech, but they have a fairly open economy with socialist principles when it comes to the welfare state. And people there own their own property and can start business’s and move in and out of the country somewhat freely. 

Whatever people think of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Russians now have similar freedoms as the Chinese, but perhaps more individual freedom when it comes to things like religion.

Karl Marx with the Communist Manifesto, was arguing for a classless society and where there weren’t any rich people or poor people. That people were just people and not rich or poor. Which are goals that Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists in social democracies and here in America with Bernie Sanders and his supporters, push for all the time. But through a private enterprise economy and free society where people can live their own lives and live freely. But where they’re highly taxed and where business’s are highly regulated to ensure economic equality for all. So there aren’t any poor people in society. 

Most socialist states now operate whether its Scandinavia, Britain, France, Greece, etc as social democracies. And we can argue about how successful those economic systems are. But that is how they operate. Instead of having the central government trying to run the whole economy and society. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Young Americans For Liberty: Thomas Sowell on Freedom of Choice

Freedom of Choice and personal and economic freedom in general is just that. The freedom to decide what is best for yourself. Not what is best for others. Not the freedom to hurt people other than in self-defense, but the freedom for one to make their own decisions and have the personal responsibility to live with the consequences of their decisions. To consume alcohol or not, to smoke tobacco or not, to even use marijuana or not, to marry or not and the same things for gays. The freedom to gamble one's own money or not. The freedom to watch an adult film or not. The freedom to read adult material and listen to graphic music and watch graphic entertainment or not. Not the freedom to make these decisions for others, because you approve of them. Ot to deny others from making these decisions for themselves, because you don't approve of them.

If there is a free market and of course there isn't and I've argued this a lot in the past, but if there were a free market it would be an individual market based on choice. Where we can all make these decisions for ourselves and then be held responsible for the decisions that we make. A free market of individuals, not a market of business's that would go unregulated and untaxed with the freedom over our own lives as far as what we consume, because even if there are a lot of different products, there would be very few competitors, because of all the unregulated monopolization in the market. But a true individual market where all free adults make these decisions themselves with a wide-range of different business's and competitors, because monopoly is truly illegal. With an educated public that has all the information that they need to make their own decisions.

Freedom of Choice is always something that I believe in as a Liberal. Because that along with Freedom of Speech and equality opportunity and equal rights and justice for all, is really what liberalism is about. I don't want to force people to make the same decisions that I did. Or be held responsible for the decisions that I made. I just want the freedom to make my own decisions and given the responsibility to personally live up to the consequences of my decisions. Not eliminate government and get it out-of-the-way all together. We still need a regulator to regulate how people interact with each other and to punish when the innocent are harmed. But let people make their own personal decisions short of hurting innocent people and hold them personally responsible for their own decisions.

KQED: Gabe Meline- Kim Novak Opens Up: ‘I Think I’m Appreciated More Now’

Source:The Daily Review

This is a good interview from Gabe Meline of Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak and I mean that in the most positive sense. Yes, she was not just hot in Hollywood, but physically hot in general. Great body and yet so adorable at the same time that she generally came off as 10-15 years younger than she actually was, if not even younger than that. But she was so real and convincing as an actress. I think that is what made her great and again as I said before had her career not have been over for the most part by the late 1960s and I think we’re talking about one of the greatest actress’s ever. Same class as Susan Hayward, Rita Hayworth, Lauren Bacall, Lana Turner, Liz Taylor and many others. She was really that great in the 1950s and 1960s.

If you watch the movie Vertigo with Alfred Hitchcock, Madeline is Kim Novak. Either as the Hollywood bomb shell blonde or as the red-hot Hollywood bomb shell. A women who looks like a goddess on the outside. Whose 5’6 and hot with a great body, but also as cute as a baby with a sexy voice. But on the inside she was a like a sixteen year old girl who wants the hottest guy in high school, but not ready to make a move, because she doesn’t think she’s good enough for him. Or thinks he won’t like her at all. As great as Kim was she always had this self-confidence issue that wasn’t that different from Marilyn Monroe, but she was smart enough not to get involved in drugs and abuse alcohol. Especially together which would the slow way to commit suicide.

Madeline from Vertigo, is Kim Novak. This gorgeous baby-faced blonde with the great body and the sexy Czech-Slavic curves. Who is never sure of herself and just wants someone to love her for who she is and just love her. Who is involved with a guy and his fantasy about who she should be. And she goes out-her-way to try to be that person for him. If you like Alfred Hitchcock and you like Kim Novak, you’ll love Vertigo. The perfect Hitchcock movie with the hot sexy adorable blonde with a great suspense/thriller and humor all in the same movie. Like all great Hitchcock movies. And you see the real Kim Novak in it. As a goddess on the outside that every straight guy with eyes whose not blind should love, but who is very vulnerable on the inside. Even though she doesn’t has any real reason to be.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Democratic Socialists USA: 'Social and Economic Bill of Rights'

Source:Democratic Socialists USA- if Democratic Socialists were ever in charge of anything in America.
"Americans are familiar with the language of political and civil rights – one person, one voice, one vote; equal treatment before the law. We are less familiar with the justification for the social rights that have been at the center of our great political and social movements over the last century. For all citizens to flourish in a democratic society, they must be guaranteed such basic human needs as high-quality education, health care and security in old age. These goods are provided to every member of most democratic societies not by purchase on the private market, but through equitably financed, high-quality public goods and social insurance."  

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty...  

Source:Peace Takes Courage- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) talking about a proposed Economic Bill of Rights, in 1944.

From Peace Takes Courage

When you look at the New Deal from President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, you see the creation of the American public safety net. 

Things like retirement insurance, which is what Social Security is. 

Unemployment Insurance, for people who lose their jobs. 

Welfare Insurance for people who don't have real skills and also have kids. 

Public Housing for people who can't afford a home. 

And there were other social programs and protections like that and go up to the Great Society of the 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson and you see programs that build on the New Deal with more help for the poor. Medicaid, medical insurance for low-income workers and non-workers who aren't retired yet. Medicare for all retired seniors and seniors who haven't retired yet and other programs.

In 1944-45, President Roosevelt introduced what he called the Economic Bill of Rights. Which was phase two of his New Deal which would have gone much further than simple  social economic insurance, but to move us to a Scandinavian welfare state. 

Health insurance for everyone, a guaranteed quality education from government, guaranteed retirement income, guaranteed good jobs. If people can't find a job, then government would give them one working for the government. 

President Harry Truman had similar proposals in what he called the Fair Deal in the late 1940s.  But by the time Lyndon Johnson becomes president in 1963 and he moves to his Great Society agenda in 1964, he's not looking at the Scandinavian welfare state as the economic model for America. But more social insurance to deal with poverty. Not a welfare state to manage everyone's lives for them.

What Democratic Socialists USA and other democratic socialist and social democratic groups and parties would do in America, is create that Scandinavian welfare state for America. To go way past the safety net and import Denmark or Sweden as far as our economic model. 

The whole idea of the safety net is a social insurance system for people who need it when they fall down in the private enterprise system. The welfare state is there to take care of everyone regardless of income level. 

Welfare state- Government provided education for everyone, government provided health care for everyone, government provided health insurance for everyone, government provided retirement for everyone, government provided leave for everyone, etc. All of these programs would become universal regardless of income level in a democratic socialist model.

So when I hear things like Economic Bill of Rights, I hear about government guarantees so people don't have to starve, go homeless, go without health care, always will have a job even if it is working for government. At least that is the plan under these proposals and I would argue about whether we should do this or not. And instead offer an alternative that is based on empowering more Americans to have the skills to get the jobs and make the money to have the freedom to make the decisions for themselves in the private market. 

But what Democratic Socialists advocate that everyone shouldn't have to go without and they would argue the way to guarantee that is to have the central government not as the last provider of human services, but the sole provider. Which is a much different economic philosophy from what Americans are use to seeing.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Arthur Brooks: Narcissism is Increasing. So You're Not so Special

Source:The Daily Review 

The internet and even the social media revolution by in large have been great things. I’m not a blogger without it, but with every new way of people expressing themselves comes more ways of people showing more of themselves than others would like to see. And to think more of themselves than they actually are. With social media and internet wave has also come with an increase in how others live and how they present themselves. And of course I’m talking celebrity culture and tabloid news. Or what I like to call tabloid TV which is called reality TV. But anyone who is actually familiar with so-called reality TV and how it operates knows that there isn’t much that is real about. Participants are actually encouraged to act out, not be themselves which if different.

We now live in a world where not everybody, but everyone who thinks they’re awesome or whatever and with pop culture has to have whatever is new and has to have it as soon as it’s new. Because if they don’t, they believe they’re so not awesome or hot or whatever. Because even though they just got a new i-phone (to use as an example) it’s not the latest i-phone. And their friends who perhaps they just met on Facebook will think they so yesterday or whatever. So we have a culture that is now dominated by celebrities and new technology and a young generation that for the most part is only interested in those things. When they’re not protesting against the Washington Redskins or what people wear for Halloween or whatever the latest political correctness fad is.

We live in a world where people want to be like whoever their latest favorite celebrity is, who also happens to be a narcissist in many cases. And they think they’re as awesome as that celebrity and live their lives as if they’re trying out for the latest reality/tabloid TV show. So of course they’re going to live like the whole world revolves around them with a giant size mirror for walls in their parent’s basement where they currently live. And that is another thing. We have a generation of narcissists who aren’t do very well economically right now and they present themselves as if they’re the hottest celebrity in Hollywood. Even if they’re currently living in their parent’s basement in Canton, Ohio. (No offense to Canton) With a college degree worth nothing, or having to drop out of college, because they could no longer afford their student loans.

Once someone thinks they’re the center of the world, they lose touch with reality and Planet Earth. And are so far out-of-touch that they couldn’t get back in touch with a Star Trek cell phone. The most important tool that Americans will ever have in life is the truth. Especially about themselves and always know exactly who you are. Your weakness’ and yes your strengths. So you know where you’re solid and where you need self-improvement. So you never are out-of-touch with reality. And you take things for what they are. You don’t view reaching a thousand followers on Twitter or Instagram as a major life achievement. Especially if you’re currently unemployed or can’t pay your own bills. Which might be why you have so many social media followers, because you have too much free time. Self-confidence generally speaking is a good thing. But only when it’s justified.

Friday, February 19, 2016

The American Thinker: Don Feder- All Aboard Starship Bernie Sanders!

Source:The Daily Review

Perhaps the first time ever I read a post on The American Thinker where it looked like there was some real thinking involved in the writer's piece. Anytime a Socialist politician running for high office and in this case not the highest office in the country, but the highest office in the world in President of the United States, anytime that politician promises free stuff from government, ask that person who much is this free stuff going to cost you. Anyone who pays taxes in America pays for the government they receive. And in some cases we pay for the government we don't receive. If you're fortunate to never be unemployed in America, you'll never receive the Unemployment Insurance that you pay for. And that is just one example.

The weakness that Socialists in America have and why they've never caught on for the most part at least in high office, is because they're so big centralized government-centric. And again everything that government does it has to charge it's taxpayers for the cost. Or borrow the money from another country which we pay in interest relates. The old cliche 'money doesn't grow on trees', should have been the first thing that anyone ever read when studying either economics, government, or political philosophy, especially socialism. I guess today's Millennial's who are at least technically studying economics were too busy camping out at the Apple Store the night before so they could say they were one of the first five people to buy the latest i-phone and be able to post that on Facebook. And over slept that night and missed the money doesn't grow on trees economic lesson.

Millennial's, especially need to at least try to understand this. Spend one day not hyped up on Red Bull, coffee, or alcohol and focus during one government and economics lesson. Because they need to know that all of the promises that Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, now what seventeen-trillion-dollars in counting, or is it thirty-trillion-dollars, hell lets make it hundred-trillion-dollars, I have a hard time keeping up with Socialists when it comes to taxes and government. They need to know that if for some reason Bernie were to ever become President of the United States, which might only happen if all of Hillary Clinton's voters are kidnapped, or deported by Donald Trump, that everything that Bernie is promising will come with a huge cost in taxes. Nothing free about government.

New America Weekly: Lara Burt: 'TANF & Teachers- How Current Policies Are Keeping Single Mothers Down and Out of School'

Source:The New America Foundation- a mother and her new baby.

"Imagine a poor single mother today raising two children on her own and working at least 20 hours per week at a low-wage job without benefits. Then imagine that she must face the choice between remaining eligible for the restricted support she receives from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or pursuing her aspirations for higher education.

The goal of the TANF program is ostensibly to help participants successfully transition to self-sufficiency. However, by placing barriers in the way of single mothers who wish to go to school through the program's strict “work first” policy, TANF undermines their ability to achieve this goal. As a result, poor parents in general and single mothers and their children in particular are suffering needlessly.

Roughly 40 percent of families headed by single-mothers are poor. In fact, these households are more likely than any other demographic group to fall below the poverty line. There are, of course, many factors that come together to make this unfortunate reality, but this disparity can be explained at least in part by a weak social-safety net, inadequate childcare, and lack of higher education opportunities." 

It’s not that TANF (or the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) hasn’t succeeded, because it has. Take away the Great Recession and we’re not looking at a twenty-percent poverty rate today, because under TANF low-income parents are able to go back to school and get skills so they can get good jobs. We were at around ten-percent poverty in the late 1990s. Economic booms only apply to people with good skills who are prepared and qualified for good jobs. And are even leaving unemployment, or moving up for a better job.

And of course opponents of the bill from people on the Libertarian-Right who believe that government should do nothing to help people in poverty, to people on the Social Democratic-Left, who believe that self-reliance shouldn’t be the goal here and want bigger government cash payments instead, will say that the 1990s economic boom was the reason for the low poverty. But low-income adults especially need to have good skills in order to have good jobs.

TANF, was a great 1990s Welfare to Work and anti-poverty program. I believe the best government anti-poverty program ever created, because it encourages work and education over government dependence. And again without the two recessions of the 2000s TANF would have worked very well again, because President Bush supported it and even had Democratic support for it in Congress. 

What we need now is a Welfare to Work program that builds off of TANF. And says if you’re on Welfare, you’re going to work as soon as possible and that means taking at least one of the first jobs that you’re qualified for. But while these folks are going to work, they're able to keep all of their public assistance, including their Welfare checks up to the point that they can support themselves on their own and no longer need public assistance at all to support themselves and their families.Which is what's known as subsidized employment which encourages work over being homebody.

In exchange government will help you finish and further your education. As well as childcare assistance for your kids. So low-income low-skilled single-parents, have the time and the money to get a good education and to work. But not only will these new workers be going back to school as they’re entering the workforce, but they’ll continue to collect their public assistance benefits that they’re eligible for as low-income workers. Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Assistance, and even Welfare, etc.

So we should be investing more and going further with TANF, perhaps better known as Welfare to Work. Which would be a great investment in our low-income communities, but a great investment in our economy. Because we would be moving people off of public assistance all together with all the new educated workers we would be producing. And create a larger middle class and a smaller poverty class. Creating purchasing power for millions of new Americans. Money they would spend and invest in the economy. Money they could put back in their communities instead of abandoning them.

Welfare to Work, shouldn’t be about Welfare to fast food, or retail, or janitorial work, or other low-income, low-skilled jobs that don’t come with benefits after these new workers lose their childcare assistance and everything else they were getting from public assistance. But instead Welfare to the middle class and economic freedom. Which only comes through quality education and economic development. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

TruthDig: Jim Sleeper: The Blame The Campus Far-Leftists Campaign Aims at Yale

Source:The Daily Review

I swear to God (even as an Agnostic) that the technological revolution of the last 20-25 years has really made America a lot dumber. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that America’s public education system as fallen in the same time. And keep in mind America elected Dan Quayle Vice President in 1988 and Floridian Jews accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan for President in 2000. So that’s pretty stupid and then add America went to war with Iraq over bogus evidence in 2003.

But take that up more than ten years and we now have a generation of Americans who believe that minority Americans have a right to not be offended and critiqued. Even though they live in a liberal democracy that has a guaranteed constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment. I guess they were too busy texting their classmate who was sitting next to them, or got lost at Starbucks when they should have been learning about the U.S. Constitution. What the hell are you doing at college and drowning in student loans (because you never learned how to swim) if you don’t like debate. If you can’t handle politics that go against your own.

God help us if any of these Millennial’s ever become constitutional lawyers. Because they’ll look at the Constitution based on how they want it to read. Where their political correctness is the law of the land and there’s no such thing as Freedom of Speech, if it goes against their politics. Where the Right to Privacy doesn’t exist if people are engaged in behavior they disapprove of. I mean if I’m in college right now and I know I’m in student debt somewhere around fifty-thousand-dollars or more by the time I graduate, I’m busting my own ass (not my professor’s) to graduate and to learn as much about America and how the real world actually is. Not how I want it to be so I don’t think everything is swell when I enter the world. That I know everything won’t be paradise for me when I leave college.

But that is not the attitude of these Millennial goody two shoes who I guess got lost at a Karl Marx convention and gobbled up everything that Mr. Marx ever wrote and said. And now believe that is how the world should work if not currently works. God help us all if these kids ever to bother to graduate. Because they may end up dumber than when they went in, but now they won’t be a threat just to themselves. But if they were to ever get into power they’ll be a threat to anyone who believes in individual freedom both personal and economic. But especially when it comes to Freedom of Speech. But at least they’ll always have the latest smartphone, or computer, I’m sure paid for by someone else. And everything will still be awesome in their little worlds.

The National Interest: Daniel R. DePetris: 10 Questions to Ask Before Intervening in Libya Again

Source:The National Interest- American military jets over Libya. 
Source:The National Interest

It’s not that intervening in Libya in 2011 was the wrong decision. The American, European, as well as Arab intervention there saved as many as a hundred-thousand lives from the Libyan governmental forces. It was the aftermath of that war where the United States, European Union and Arab League, all failed. We knocked out the Qadhafi Regime and handed the country over to Libyan rebels that simply weren’t ready to govern and defend a country the size of Iran and Saudi Arabia in size. The Libyan military and security forces, including law enforcement, simply weren’t ready to defend this large country even with only six-million people. Plus the fact that the National Transitional Council in Libya, only represented at most half of the country and they weren’t ready to govern and defend the entire country.

So now Libya has essentially been divided in half with an east and a west. Without any true national government. Not all that different in how America looked in the 1860s before the Civil War. Or how Vietnam looked before the Communist North took over the entire country in the mid 1970s. And because of this power vacuĆ¼m ISIS has moved into Libya and about ready to control part of this large country, because again there is no real national military, national law enforcement agency and no national government, to push back and prevent ISIS from coming in. Whatever you think of the Iraq War and I’m against it, but America didn’t bail after we knocked out the Hussein Regime. We stayed, stayed, stayed and are still there. The Iraq War would have been a hell of a lot worst for Iraq had we not stayed after we knocked out the Hussein Regime in 2003.

I believe America, Europe and the Arab League, should and need to intervene in Libya again, with coƶperation from the two warring government’s there, but to put it simply we need to do it right this time. Destroy ISIS and whatever other terrorists group are there, but then stay to help a unified Libya develop their own military and law enforcement agencies and national government. As well as the provincial government’s there so they can govern and defend themselves in the future. And that would mean bringing the two government’s there together and forming a national unity government. With one executive, one legislative and one national judicial branch. As well as one government for each province and locality so this large country and govern and defend itself. And no longer be vulnerable to rebels and terrorists groups.

Libya, is in America’s and Europe’s interest, because ISIS is now there and they’re a threat to us. Not the same threat as lets say Russia, but they could hit one of our embassies or hit America inside of the United States. Libya is also in America’s and Europe’s interest, because its’ such a large country. Only Algeria has more land than Libya in Western Arabia. And it’s simply ‘too big to fail.’ (A phrase from the Great Recession) And we need to at least try to make this country work which is what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan with limited success and are still trying to help those big countries succeed as well. The West and the Arab states, can’t afford to have a large country that is in chaos that is being run by terrorists, because we and them could get hit by those groups. And the United States and European Union should help Libya in the air with the Arab League on the ground, to destroy ISIS.
CATO Institute: Did The Military Intervention in Libya Succeed?

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

CATO Institute: Sheldon Richman- Dissolving the Inkblot: Privacy As Property Right

Source:CATO Institute

I love the U.S. Constitution for what it is, because I see it as the one document that protects all of our individual freedom in America, both personal and economic. As all Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians should. And I would never remove or amend any of our amendments in it, or the Bill of Rights.  But if there were two things that I would add to it, it would be two new additional constitutional rights. The Right to a Quality Education, so no one is trapped in a bad school simply because they come from low-income parents, or a low-single single-parent. And what this is really about and maybe I would amend the Fourth Amendment to include this, or just create a new amendment, but I would add a guaranteed right to Freedom of Choice.

Where I agree with Libertarian Economist Walter Williams is that property rights extends to one's self. Their own body and because that we're all responsible for our own personal decisions. Even when people make bad decisions for us, it is us that have to live with them and in a sense we become responsible for someone else's bad decisions. I actually have personal experience with this. And given that and given we live in a liberal democracy and free society we should be responsible for one's self, as well as our kids until they come of age. But we and government shouldn't be responsible for making the decisions for other free adults in their own personal lives. So instead of someone telling us, no you can't do that when it comes to our own personal decisions, we should make those decisions ourselves. Just as long as we aren't hurting innocent person's or people.

The Freedom of Choice, is not the freedom to hurt innocent people. It is the freedom for one to make their own decisions and as long as they aren't hurting innocent people and then held personally responsible for their own bad decisions for good and bad. And that is where self-ownership and self-government comes in. The right for people to self-govern themselves and make their own decisions. Not someone's else's decisions. Like whether to live healthy or not, whether to live or not, whether to gamble or not, whether to smoke marijuana or not, whether to either pay for sex, or sell themselves for sex or not. And I could go on, but hopefully you have other things you would like to do in your lifetime than to read this indefinite list.  But the freedom for people to make their own personal and economic decisions. And then be held personally responsible for them.

Freedom of Choice, is yes the freedom to decide, but just because someone has that freedom doesn't necessarily mean they'll do that. It just means they have the personal freedom to make their own decisions. To drink alcohol, or not, to smoke marijuana, or not, to have a homosexual relationship and marriage, or not and again I could go, but I trust you have lives. It says that as intelligent and educated as a group of individuals in government might be, that generally they're and others are better off if they make their own decisions instead of making the personal decisions of others. And then set the rules for how people should interact with each other. But not decide for everyone else just because they may think someone is bad or dangerous and can even make a good case for that, that no one else should be able to make those decisions for themselves.

Los Angeles Times: Patrick Kevin Day- Kim Novak- Hollywood Star Walk

When I think of pure beauty, grace, class, realism, adorableness, Kim Novak is not the only actress I think of, but she’s certainly one of my favorites. I don’t know of another actress who was that hot, baby-faced adorable and that well-built and that real. A hot 5’6 women with a great body and whose also baby-faced adorable, who played all of her roles as if she’s playing herself. If you judge an actress by how real and believable their character is, meaning do the you believe the actress playing the women or not, that alone would make Kim Novak not just one of the best actress’s of her generation that includes Angie Dickinson, Sophia Loren, Dyan Cannon, Liz Taylor and many others, Grace Kelly, but one of the best actress’s of all-time.

And I believe what makes Kim even better is that the women that she played most of the time tended to be very different from who she is in real-life. Kim, was somewhat shy and lacking in self-confidence and never quite sure of herself. Which was perfect for her in Vertigo where she plays Madeline who is very similar in personality. But look at The Man With The Golden Arm with Frank Sinatra and she’s playing the cool always sure of herself character. Whose trying to save a drug addict and gambler played by Sinatra, from himself. Which is my point about Kim that she was so good at playing her characters even people who were very different from herself. But played them so well as if she was playing herself.

I’m not saying Kim Novak is Lauren Bacall, or Liz Taylor, Rita Hayworth, Susan Hayward, but probably in the next group, or the one right after that if not the second one. Because she sort of burned out by the late 1960s and attempted a few comebacks after that without achieving the great roles that she use to have. Had she still been doing well in Hollywood in the 1970s and 1980s, maybe we’re talking about an actress who belongs in the first group of greatest actress’s of all-time. But for her time in the 1950s through the mid 1960s she was one of the best and best looking in Hollywood. And landed a lot of great movies and roles because of that. And someone who clearly belongs in the Hollywood Hall of Fame, or the equivalent of that.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The American Prospect: Harold Meyerson: 'Bernie Sanders & The New Left'

Source:The American Prospect- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) campaigning for President of the United States of America. Not Prime Minister of Scandinavia.
"What's with these kids?

In the wake of the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton supporters are surely wondering how a previously obscure 74-year-old senator seems to have captured the imagination and support of millions of young people. Generations often have distinct political profiles, but seldom, if ever, has a presidential race polarized generations more than that between Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Since exit polls first popped up at the end of the 1960s, we've never seen one quite comparable to the one that emerged from Monday's Iowa Caucuses: Sanders's strength was at its greatest within the youngest age group (84 percent among caucusers under 30) and then declined in each successively older age band. Clinton's, of course, was the reverse: peaking among caucus attendees over 65 at 69 percent and then declining in each successively younger group. Sanders had a clear majority of voters under 45; Clinton, of those over.

A generation gap as wide as the Grand Canyon seems to be opening up in the Democratic Party and American liberalism more generally. To some in the opposing camps, the divisions appear rooted in incompatible ideologies and counterposed strategic conceptions of how to promote the progressive cause. Look more closely, however-as both sides must-and the divide appears less fundamental, less socialism-versus-liberalism, less idealism-versus-pragmatism. The Democratic Party as a whole is moving left, but at two different speeds. What makes these differences seem so intense is less a sharp clash of beliefs, and more that the divisions have emerged in the course of an almost unimaginably high-stakes presidential contest."

Back in 2008, when then Senator Barack Obama was running for president, the New-Left in America which were predominantly Millennial’s in their twenties and Gen-Xer’s in their thirties and forties, overwhelmingly supported Senator Obama’s presidential campaign. Why? Because they saw him as one of them, a Socialist. Instead of supporting an actual McGovernite Socialist like Representative Dennis Kucinich, they supported Senator Obama for president.

An obvious case of high school students not doing their homework, or perhaps giving their homework to their dogs and then using that as an excuse for not doing their homework. Go to a bad enough high school and you might pull that off with one of your teachers. But Barack Obama is obviously not a Socialist. Even if the whacked out Tea Party believes otherwise. What President Obama has been, is a true Progressive. In someone who believes in using government to create progress across the board. But is very practical in how to accomplish that progress.

Now, go up eight years later to today and the New-Left has finally found their McGovernite Socialist. Someone who wants to almost completely transform the American economic system short of nationalizing it. Which might be somewhat disappointing for some on the New-Left. As well as Senator Bernie Sanders not being on board when it comes to political correctness, outlawing private ownership of guns and the broader nanny state in general.

If you want to call Bernie a Liberal, fine! But add Socialist to that and you got a Socialist Liberal, whose very liberal on social issues. Meaning someone who believes in limited, if not small government when it comes to personal freedom issues. But someone who is very socialist on economic and foreign policy. Big believer in big centralized national government. With high taxes across the board to finance it.

If somehow Minnesota were to go through an August heat wave next week and see temperatures of a hundred degrees in February and Seattle were to run out of both coffee and water as well during the same week and Uncle Sam were to outlaw all taxation, again in the same week and Bernie Sanders somehow managed to win the Democratic nomination for president in what is still a Center-Left progressive (not socialist) Democratic Party and not the Far-Left Green Party, some of his supporters might actually be disappointed in him.

We’re not talking about a Communist here who wants to outlaw all forms of individual freedom and individualism here. But a Socialist-Liberal or Democratic Socialist, who is down with the New-Left perhaps on 99% of the economic and foreign policy issues. But someone who is a big believer in personal freedom. Which is something for the New-Left to think about. We’re not talking about a Communist candidate for president, but a true Democratic Socialist. Like Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace, or George McGovern. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

The Federalist: Lewis M. Andrews- Political Correctness Is A Mask For Far-Leftists Intellectual Insecurity

Source:The Daily Review

I agree that political correctness is a mask for insecurity on the Far-Left, as well as the Far-Right. When Neoconservatives hear things that they view as Un-American or immoral and want stricken down and prevented from ever being heard again. But with the Far-Left they view some world in their Utopian dreamland where people they view as insecure and have been persecuted in the past to the point that they deserve governmental special protection. To the point that minority groups shouldn’t have to even hear criticism about them even when it’s true. That the only people who should be criticized are ‘The Man’, (meaning the White man) Christian-Conservatives and even right-wingers who are minorities. And they should be portrayed simply as ‘White people’ with dark complexions.

Who wouldn’t want to live in a world where everything is swell. (To quote The Beaver) Where everything is perfect, where people regardless of race or ethnicity, never have to hear anything negative about them, because everything is swell. They’re perfect. No such thing as teenage pregnancies or poverty. But that is not the world we’ll ever live in, at least in my lifetime. We have a large religious-right in this world, both Christian and Islamic. And to say that only Christian-Conservatives are bigots towards women and gays and leave Islamists off the hook, is denying facts that are right in front of you. To say that only Anglo-Saxon redneck jokes are acceptable, but if you make fun of African-American ghetto people and impersonate people from that community, you’re a bigot, but jokes and impressions of rednecks are perfectly acceptable, is a form of bigotry.

If you believe only the Christian-Right and rednecks, are the real bigots and Neoconservatives in general, but Islamists who have similar positions towards gays, women, as well as ethnic and racial minorities and in some cases would go even further and are more authoritarian and would put gays to death simply for being gay, make the case. Try to make the case that only Caucasians have bigoted views. That only the Christian-Right hates gays and believes women should be subservient to men and good luck with that. Perhaps you’ll win the lottery and win a million dollars. Become a millionaire on Wall Street by only investing only five bucks. Never get wet in a Seattle rain storm, or ever see snow in Minnesota again, even if you live there year-round, etc. Maybe you’ll just become the most bless person in the world as well.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor- 'Twenty Years Since The Welfare Reform of 1996'

Source:Common Dreams- President Bill Clinton, speaking in favor of Welfare To Work, in 1996.
“This week marks the 19th anniversary of legislation that conditions income assistance for parents and children on participation in a disciplinary program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Over the lifetime of the brutal TANF regime, the provision of actual income assistance has been overshadowed by the imposition of rules and services to regulate poor mothers’ lives. As the Black Lives Matter movement shines a light on the racism of so-called criminal “justice,” it is an important moment to consider how the intersecting inequalities of race, gender, and poverty are reproduced in the policy that claims to promote poor peoples’ “welfare.”

From Common Dreams

“Twenty years ago in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, more commonly known as “welfare reform.” The welfare reform of 1996 sought to “end welfare as we know it,” as President Clinton had often stated. The Winter 2016 issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management has a “Point/Counterpoint” exchange on the effects, which at least for now is freely available on-line, although many readers will also have access through library subscriptions. The intellectual combat here isn’t in the binary, black vs. white. fire vs. ice, war-of-the-worlds style. Instead, Ron Haskins takes the position the glass-half-full position in “TANF At Age 20: Work Still Works” (pp. 224-231), and then the team of Sandra K. Danziger, Sheldon Danziger, Kristin S. Seefeldt, and H. Luke Shaefer takes the glass-half-empty position in “From Welfare to a Work-Based Safety Net: An Incomplete Transition” (pp. 231-238). The authors then offer a response-and-rejoinder to each other, as well.”

From the Conservable Economist

“Ron Haskins, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, speaks about welfare reform and its milestones throughout history.”

Source:UALR-TV- Brookings Institution Ron Haskins, speaking in favor of Welfare To Work.

Tim Taylor, makes some great points about the timing that Welfare to Work was done in 1996. The economy started booming again in 1994. The budget deficit was falling, unemployment was dropping. But we’ve had good economic booms where poverty didn’t fall at all and if anything went up. In the 1980s homelessness, became a national issue. Poverty went up and the prison population boomed.

In the 1990s the economy boomed after the 1990-91 recession, unemployment dropped dramatically, crime dropped dramatically and poverty which is the most critical issues in any Welfare reform, also dropped dramatically. Eleven-percent poverty level by 2000. The budget deficit didn’t just fall, but we had four balanced budgets in a row by 2001 and actually started paying down the national debt.

And yes the poverty level in America is now twenty-percent again, but that isn’t because of Welfare to Work. It would be higher without Welfare to Work. You might remember 2008-09 pretty well when we had this little economic disaster called the Great Recession. Which sent middle-income working families into families on Unemployment. You don’t get rich collecting Unemployment Insurance. People on Unemployment Insurance have lost their homes. Plus there was another recession from 2001-02 from another stock market collapse and thanks to 9/11.

The only way you get out of poverty (which means off of public assistance for non-retired workers) is with a good job. You need good skills to get a good job. If you’re a single-parent without good skills you’ll need childcare and health insurance as well. That is all part of Welfare to Work.

As much as today’s so-called Progressives (New-Left Socialists, in actuality) want to paint Welfare to Work as a racist scheme to kick minority families off of Welfare and force them to fend for themselves, you couldn’t be further from the truth if you were on Planet Pluto.

Welfare to Work and going further with that, with more childcare assistance, a higher minimum wage and make it more like 10-12 bucks an hour, forcing neglecting parents to at least take financially responsibility for their kids and making even low-income work pay more than Welfare, are the best things we can do for low-income families.

Work should never be an option on public assistance, but instead a requirement. Along with education and childcare, requiring parents, to keep their kids in school, would be big help as well.

Welfare Insurance, or cash payments, is only the first part in a new campaign to defeat poverty. That once you’re on WI you receive it but in a real short-term and take the first job that you’re qualified for. If you didn’t finish high school, you would do that as a condition for receiving Welfare. If you have a high school diploma now you’re in community college, or some other job training. Even if you have a job, but especially if you have a job and would get childcare assistance so you would have the time to get an education and work.

So instead of Welfare just being a net that catches people before they end up homeless or in jail or something, it instead is a vehicle to help people move themselves out of poverty. And once they finish their education they would even be eligible for small business loans and go into business for themselves.

Welfare and Public Housing, shouldn’t just be tools to prevent people from homelessness and starvation. But again vehicles to transport people out of poverty along with their kids.

If we truly want to fight poverty in America and I sure as hell do as both a Liberal and actual Progressive who wants to use government to empower people and create real progress, then homelessness and starvation prevention insurance, is not enough. You can’t just have people living a little more comfortably while still in poverty, but instead empower them to move themselves out of poverty. And even make it a requirement that people self-improve themselves. So we know who wants to work and be productive and who simply wants to live off of hard-working taxpayers.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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