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

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

The New York Times: Opinion- Michelle Goldberg: The Worst Time For The Left To Give Up On Free Speech

Source: The New York Times-
Source: The New York Times: Opinion- Michelle Goldberg: The Worst Time For The Left To Give Up On Free Speech

If today's campus radicals who seem to have more faith and support for Communists like Che Guevara and other Communists from the past, don't believe in the liberal value of free speech, maybe they should support free speech for this reason. If right-wingers from everyone from Conservative-Libertarians from CATO Institute and the American Enterprise Institute on the Center-Right, to right-wing Nationalists who support Donald Trump, to Ann Coulter and Neo-Nazis on the Far-Right, can be shut down simply because they're right-wing radicals who offend young people and minorities, then the Far-Left will be next when the Right has the power to shut people up simply because they disagree with people who disagree with them and see them as Un-American.

What ANTIFA and other Far-Left radicals Socialists and even Communists, don't seem to understand is that political correctness is about as illiberal a movement that we have in America and it goes both ways. Political correctness is not simply designed for protecting minorities from having to hear anything negative about them. Its designed to protect anyone who believes they've been offended and has enough political support to start a movement or be part of a broader movement. From young Americans who feel they need to protect minorities from right-wingers. To Christian-Nationalists who believe they need to use political correctness and censor certain forms of entertainment and speech that they believe goes against their Christian values.

The U.S. Congress both the House and Senate, operate on precedent. When the majority party in one chamber or the other tries to put in new rules to benefit them and weaken the minority party, those same tactics end up being used against them when the other party comes back into power. We saw this in the Senate in 2013 when Senate Democrats tried to eliminate filibusters that Senate Republicans were using against Obama Administration appointments. So Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, ended filibusters on executive appointments except for Supreme Court nominees. And now that Republicans are back in power there are now no filibusters for Supreme Court appointments because Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans have eliminated them. American politics outside of Congress works the same way.

Speech that I may approve and like, might be speech that offends  someone else. That person might believe speech that I believe is offensive. If I try to shut them up, they'll counter that and try to shut me up. If I'm successful in shutting them up simply because I disagree with what they have to say, they might not be able to shut me up immediately, but someone else will be later on and then be able to point back and say I used censorship against someone else. We all know what everyone else believes or at least has said thanks to the internet and social media. The only way a vast diverse liberal democracy (and not communist state) like America can survive is to allow everyone especially since we have a First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech, to have their say and let them speak and believe as they choose. Short of inciting violence and falsely accusing people. Otherwise we'll always be fighting each other and eventually break up.

To paraphrase President Andrew Shepard from The American President. (played by Michael Douglas) America is hard, you really have to want it to be part of if. To live in a society where you can express yourself as you feel, but to know that someone else and others will do the exactly the same thing and even believe in and say things that you hate. But to know for America to work you'll fight for and believe in your free speech rights and speech and speakers that you love and cherish, as much as for speech and speakers that you might quite frankly hate.

And then when everyone has their say we all have our free speech rights to not only express what we believe and how we feel, but speak about how we feel about what others have said and make the case for why they're wrong. But not to shut them up simply because we disagree with them and even find them hateful. Liberal democracy and free speech, are for everyone. Not just the people that we approve of and agree with.
Source: PEN America: Free Speech vs. Safe Space- A Panel Discussion

Monday, October 30, 2017

The New Yorker: William Brennan- The Night Bernie Sanders Was President

Source: The New Yorker-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

How about we all go to Colorado and load up on marijuana. Cigarets, cookies, whatever it might be and just get as high as New York skyscrapers and Elvis fans thinking they just saw The King. Because that might be the only way an honest, sane, intelligent person, can imagine a Democratic Socialist from New York City, who has represented the Socialist Republic of Vermont in Congress for now almost 27 years, as President of the United States. The George McGovern of the post-World War II generations.

Looking back at it now I believe the only reasons why Bernie Sanders who isn't even a registered Democrat, but self-described Democratic Socialist (which is a little different) became the number one alternative to Hillary Clinton, who really was the most qualified presidential candidate at least since George H.W. Bush, has to do with how screwed up the Democratic Party is, as well as the broader American political system. Americans are fed up with the establishment and and fed up with establishment political candidates, to the point that they will look at any candidate, especially who is an official Democrat or Republican who doesn't come from the establishment.

Bernie Sanders whatever you think of him doesn't come from the establishment, at least in a political party sense. I would argue that at least in the sense that anyone who has worked in Washington and has served in Congress for now 27 years when January comes in a couple of months, is as establishments as oranges are, well orange, or politicians lie. But Bernie's politics are certainly not establishment. I mean, a Democratic Socialist who promises all of these so-called free services from government, because he doesn't trust the private sector to provide them and doesn't even believe in capitalism, is as anti-Washington as Libertarians are anti-socialism.

And again Bernie Sanders runs for President at a time when American hate politicians and hate how their government is being run and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Also at a time when you have roughly hundred-million Millennial's who don't like capitalism, or at least that is what they say, even though they buy and love all the products and services that come from capitalism. And not just with new technology and Hollywood, but fashion and everyone else that our capitalist system produces.

But Millennial's seem to believe that they're being screwed by capitalism. They have college degrees and yet they can't seem to find jobs that moves them out of their parents basements. They're drowning in college debt. And here you have at the time a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist who was originally from New York City (perhaps the capital of American Socialism) come in and say, "capitalism and the rich, are screwing Americans. And we need to destroy the capitalist and two-party establishment and do something else."

The reason why someone like Bernie Sanders (the George McGovern of today) who would be as mainstream in Sweden or Britain as soccer is popular, but in American politically stands out as badly as pornographers at a Southern Baptist Convention and seems to have landed in America from the Planet Utopia and playing Santa Clause (I guess a Jewish Santa Clause) with all of these gifts from Uncle Sam saying that all of these services are free, with a fat bill in the mail later on that most of us call taxes, but the reason why a Bernie Sanders can make a strong run for the presidential nomination for the largest and oldest political party at least in America, is because he came down from Planet Utopia and saw a perfect political storm.

The anti-establishment of anti-establishment political candidates running at a time when the establishment in America is as unpopular as New York Yankees fans at an Irish pub in Boston. With millions of Americans essentially jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and saying they hate the establishment too and they also love socialism (even though most of them don't know what it is) and are going to work hard for Bernie Sanders for President. And cheering and loving everything that Bernie says, because he's always promising free stuff and gifts from Uncle Sam. Apparently Socialists don't believe taxes are fees and bills that taxpayers pay for government services.

I'm not sure I can imagine a Bernie Sanders for President in America. I think it would have been interesting to see Democrats give him the nomination just to see how the Donald Trump Campaign would have played him, which is exactly what they would have done. Part of Donald Trump's rigged system theme was all about Bernie and how he believed the Democratic Party was treating Bernie. They wanted to run against Bernie regardless of what the polls were saying, because of what Bernie represents ideologically.

They could've run commercials essentially saying that America can't afford Bernie. Under a Bernie Sanders presidency, America wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because Bernie would gut the defense system.

You would see commercials like, "North Korea wants Bernie Sanders as President, so they can attack us when our defense is down."

Another commercial like, "under President Bernie Sanders, Americans would now have to work three jobs instead of 1 or even 2. One job to pay the taxes and two jobs to try to support themselves."

And these ads would work because you have millions of Americans who don't follow politics very closely and have a tendency to believe what people tell them without even considering the source of the information and whatever motives the person might have for saying what they're saying. Which is how you get the political system that we have in America where politicians are essentially in office to stay in office and get elected to higher office. Because if they even bother to try to govern they could risk losing political support.

I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders as President simply because I'm an American and I'm smart enough to know that Americans might say they like free government services, but only until they find out that those services aren't free and that their real taxes that come from those services. And even if a Bernie Sanders gets to the White House, that is probably as far as he would get. Because he would have a Congress even if Democrats control the House or Senate or even both chamber's, telling President Sanders no. Because they believe government is trying to do too much here, but also because they don't want to raise the taxes on people that they need in order to get reelected. But in a country that invented Hollywood Americans can imagine anything. Including a Socialist as President.
Source: Comedy Central The President Meets Bernie Sanders

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Theodore Roosevelt: Absolute Equality, Absolute Justice, In Matters of Taxation

Source: Google-
When I think of Progressives and I mean true Progressives and not just people who use the label to self-identify with because they believe its politically or culturally popular and don't use it in pop culture terms, but in political terms, I think of people who believe in progress. Yes, that government can help create progress through government action and even programs, but only use government to create progress and not make things worst.

And certainly not create new programs for ideological purposes and be able to say we created this program or that program, but if you're creating a new program or spending new revenue on it, you're doing that because you know progress will be made. That there is a real need and use for that program, or regulation. That government programs are judged by whether they're working or not. Not by how much money is being spent on them.

Are Welfare programs to use as an example, are they helping people to get out of poverty and become independent and empowering people to achieve freedom on their own. Or are they leaving them in poverty with a little more money than they use to have. That being a Progressive is about making things better and that you should also be fiscally responsible. Are government programs working or not. Are they outdated and need to be reformed, or are they now so successful that you no longer need then and can now scrap them and use those resources to fill another need.

A lot of times politicians especially populists on the Left tell their constituents that they delivered this program or that and spent this amount of money on this program or that one. What they tend to to fail to tell their constituents are the costs of those programs because in many cases they advertise those programs as being free. Like free college, free health care, to use as examples. They also tend not to tell voters the results of the programs that they support and how effective they are. But instead just tell voters how much money that they were able to spend on them.

Progressives are actually not like that and instead will say this is why this program was created to do this. And this is how much it costs you (meaning the taxpayers) and this is what we get for this investment. This is why we have this program and why we're spending this money on it. Progressives are true American Patriots because of course they love America, but they really do love it and understand that no even great society is ever perfect and will ever be perfect.

That one major difference between a Progressive and Conservative, is that Conservatives believe in conserving. Keeping the status-quo as is. Progressives are about progress and making things better and moving forward. That as great as America is it can always be better and knowing that America will never be prefect, that you always strive for perfection, you always strive for perfect to make America as great as it can be.

To talk about this Teddy Roosevelt quote for a while which also happens to be the title of this piece and probably why I should talk about him and his quote. TR was right that absolute equality and absolute justice, won't be obtain through taxation. We'll never have a society where everything is equal and probably should never have this society. We'll always have a society where some people are more productive than others and as a result will always do better than others. Not because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, but because they were better than their competition. They got a better education, understood their business better and as a result made better decisions and investments and advanced further than even some people he also had a good education and were able to get good jobs.

Teddy Roosevelt was a true Progressive because he believed in progress and using government to make things better for people. He was not Socialist Eugene Debbs (who was from the same era) politically who believed you needed a huge welfare state and even even government involvement in industry to take care of people for them.

What Teddy believed was in a regulatory state not to run business's and private employers, but to protect innocent consumers and employees from predators. That their needed to be certain rules in the economy so you wouldn't have monopolies but so consumers could purchase safe products and workers could work in safe working conditions.

Teddy also believed in a safety net for people who fall through the cracks of the American capitalist private enterprise system and need temporary financial relief when they're unemployed or are working, but don't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a welfare state to manage people's lives for them because he saw people as essentially stupid who aren't capable of making good decisions in society on their own.

So when Teddy Roosevelt says that absolute justice and absolute equality, can't be obtain through taxation, I take that to mean that you can only tax the wealthy so much to take care of everyone else. That America is not Sweden and you can't have the central government collecting all the revenue in the country and then deciding for everyone else what the people need to live well and then giving that money back equally.

What you need to do is create a society and economy where everyone has the opportunity and ability to succeed in life and be as productive as they possibly can, But then with a progressive tax system pay to the government  based on what they earned. But not to the point that it discourages them from making a lot of money in the future. As well as a regulatory state to play referee and not the head coach of private organizations and a safety net to help people get back up when they fall down.
Source: Progressive People's Coalition: Teddy Roosevelt- Social and Industrial Justice- 1912

Friday, October 27, 2017

The Bully Pulpit: JR Benjamin- Gore Vidal: Rioting in Understatement

Source: The Nation-
Source: The piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I believe to listen to Gore Vidal speak or read any of his material, you first have to know where he’s coming from and what his political background is. He doesn’t view individual rights and freedom like most Americans do. He has more of a social democratic or democratic socialist approach to how looks at politics, rights, and freedom. He was as far to the left as Henry Wallace who ran for President for the Progressive Party back in 1948, Senator George McGovern, who ran for President three times for the Democratic Party, or Senator Bernie Sanders today.

So when Gore Vidal talks about rights and freedom, he means the right not to go without the basic essentials in life.

The right not to starve.

The right not to want.

The right to health care and health insurance.

The right to housing.

The right to work if someone chooses to, but that work shouldn’t be required even for people who are mentally and physically able.

And for people who literally choose not to work in order to support themselves, those people are also entitled to the same rights that I just mentioned.

The rights that President Franklin Roosevelt proposed in 1944 in his second Bill of Rights speech. What would be called today welfare rights and perhaps back then as well. The rights for people to be taken care of instead of everyone going out there and making their own  way in life and creating their own individual freedom for themselves. Which is very different from what the Founding Fathers created for America even though they didn’t tend individual rights for all Americans and not just Englishmen of wealth. Those individual rights that all Americans have regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender, apply to all Americans because that is how the Founding Fathers (Founding Liberals, really) wrote our Bill of Rights.

All what was consistent with Gore Vidal and is also consistent with the Socialist-Left today that Noam Chomsky and others argue, is that America doesn’t even have a two-party system, let alone a multiple party system. That we have a one-system that has people called Democrats and others called Republicans. Who are both controlled by big business in America and the National Security State.

Gore was somewhat conspiratorial to say the least. And even though he was a helluva lot smarter than your everyday JFK assassination conspiracy theorist and a very intelligent and funny man in general, he had his own conspiracy theories as well.
The Nation: Gore Vidal- Speech at The Nation in 1990

Thursday, October 26, 2017

John Birch Society: Opinion- John F. McManus: 'Hugh Hefner and Moral Decline'- Hugh Hefner: A Champion For Individualism

Source: John Birch Society-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review Plus

Similar to Hugh Hefner like Ayn Rand, is an example of why the Far-Left and Far-Right in America are like an arguing fighting married couple who you would think are bitter enemies out the door headed for divorce when you see them, but who actually love each other. Similar to Al and Peggy Bundy, from the great sitcom Married With Children. Or Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, from the great movie Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. The Far-Right and Far-Left have both Ayn Rand and Hugh Hefner in common, as far as people they both not just oppose, but hate.

Hugh Hefner represents what the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and the Socialist-Left and in some cases now Communist-Left, hate about about America which is individualism and personal freedom. The ability for one to pick their own lot in life and live with their own decisions. Chart their own course in life and live the way they choose, not how Big Government decides for them, because they believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions. And that free adults are essentially children and mental patients, without the knowledge and judgment to make their own decisions in life.

I mean, H\ugh Hefner created Playboy Magazine. He didn’t create the lifestyle, but he made it mainstream, along with the Baby Boom Generation and the 1960s. Pre-Hefner and Playboy, America was still the 1950s Father Knows Best, honey, I’m home! America! Where Dad of course worked and where Mom stayed home. Women of course were allowed to work in America, but could be denied employment simply because of their gender, or lose their husband if they choose to enter the outside workforce.

Thanks to Hefner and others, in the 196os Americans finally saw the memo that America is about freedom and the individual. That Americans can actually make their own decisions in life and not have to live in Big Bother’s basement anymore and go out in the world and decide for themselves how to live and what the American Dream means for them.

That men didn’t necessarily have to get married, nor did women. That men and women didn’t even have to get married in order to have kids. That they could actually do those things together without getting married. Even if the Christian-Right labeled their kids as bastards. That women could build careers for them and then perhaps later on if they met the right man and wanted to, they could settle down and have kids. Instead of setting out to get married and have kids and soon as they’re out of college.

Not saying I approve of Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle and that lifestyle isn’t for men. But what’s great about America along with our diversity and equal rights and what actually makes America exceptional is our individualism. The right for free adults to be themselves. That even porn freaks and men who can’t get it up in a traditional way and fine just one beautiful sexy woman boring, have a place in America.

And of course the Far-Left hates Hefner not just because of his individualism and the personal freedom that millions of men and women in America finally felt that they had, but they believed Hefner was an exploiter of women because of the pornography that his magazine represented and even produced. Apparently unaware that American women actually have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to get involved, or in bed even with someone like Hefner and pose for playboy and other pornographic publications, or decide not to. I guess the Far-Left as much as they claim to be champions of feminism, apparently see American women actually as stupid and not able to make these decisions for themselves.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy, represent choice in America. The freedom for people to choose their own course and life and make their own choices. You don’t like pornography, don’t associate with it and keep your kids away from it. Freedom and responsibility, instead of Big Government making these very personal decisions for everyone else. Similar to guns in America, you don’t prosecute people for having guns, but shooting innocent people with those guns. Well similar to pornography and the playboy lifestyle, you don’t prosecute people simply for living a non-traditional lifestyle. You prosecute people when they hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Rape being and sexual assault, being excellent examples.

And of course the Christian-Right would argue that Americans have a right to self-defense under the 2nd Amendment. And I agree with that . And they would also argue we don’t have a right to pornography and to live our own lifestyles as we choose. Well, we do have the First Amendment which covers free speech and expression, free press. And we also have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as property rights under the Fifth Amendments. All three of these amendments cover a lot of ground and give Americans a lot of freedom to make their own personal decisions in life. And with that freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. Individualism, personal freedom, and responsibility, is what I believe Hugh Hefner represents.
Source: Scott Bradley Hugh Hefner and a Moral and Religious People

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Reason: Hit & Run- Matt Welch- Republicans: 'We Have To Cut Taxes Because We're Too Cowardly To Cut Spending'

Source: Reason Magazine- Senator Rand Paul & President Donald Trump-
Source: Reason: Hit & Run- Matt Welch: Republicans- 'We Have To Cut Taxes Because We're Too Cowardly To Cut Spending'

According to Wikipedia.

'Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal Conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reaction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets.'

Call me silly, but when I think of fiscal Conservatives I think of people who believe the national debt and budget deficits, not only exist (unlike at least some Socialists) but its a big deal. (Unlike most Socialists) That when government borrows heavily and run up high deficits and debt especially when their economy is growing and job growth is high, which is what the American economy is doing right now, that running high deficits and debt is not a good thing.

Because you end up having your government, as well as your economy depending on others to make sure your government gets the borrowing that it needs run its operations. Plus, when you run high deficits and debt, which is where America is now while your economy is strong which is where are now as far as growing economy with low unemployment and high job growth, your government ends up competing with the private sector for borrowing. Which affects interest rates and makes it more difficult for private organizations to borrow money. Which is where we are now which isn't much different from the 1980s that had strong economic and job growth for most of the decade, while the U.S. Government was piling up deficits and debt every year. Which affected the stock market with the 1987 crash and was partially responsible for the recession of the early 1990s.

So to me anyway a fiscal Conservative is someone who is not only concern about high deficits and debt, but is crazy enough to believe that those issues need to be dealt with so at the very least they don't get out of hand. If there is anything positive about having a Republican united government (and most of the country is still looking for anything positive about that) it would be at least now there's a political party in power and in control that will finally deal with our deficits and debt. And works to pass policies out of Congress that brings our deficit down and perhaps even puts the budget on a path where it could be balanced at some point. Where at the very least the national debt is now growing faster than the economy.

Again, if there's anything positive about having the Republican Party in charge of anything, it would be at least you would have fiscal Conservatives in charge who'll bring down our debt and deficits. get our spending under control, decentralize the Federal Government, get more power out of Washington. But thats not where the Republican Party is right now. They seem to believe that fiscal conservatism is about obtaining power, not about governing. But as a tool to use to get into power, but once you're there then it becomes about staying in power.

And I'm not picking on Socialists anymore than they deserve to at least, but tax cuts in America are popular to anyone who is not a Socialist. Perhaps more popular to Republicans and the Republican Leadership in Congress and at the White House, has concluded that the best way for them to stay in power is to pass popular bills that will help them get reelected and keep their majorities next year. And then let their children and grandchildren figure out the costs of their parents and grandparents borrow and spending. National debt card spending spree that covers everything from defense spending and generous tax loopholes, to Federal spending covering public education and medical research. As well as the Federal safety net.

I really could call this piece The Death of Fiscal Conservatism, because that is what we're seeing in the Republican Party. Even with House Republican who in 2014 were railing against the so-called Obama deficits and national debt and overspending and arguing about how big a threat to our children's future and other nonsense that they've seem to forgotten. Apparently power does corrupt and its a lot easier to be loudmouth when you're on the sidelines than actually in the game with the ball. Apparently Republicans now believe that you don't have be in the game to govern, but don't even have to have any balls to take on high deficits, the national debt and that governing to them is just about staying in power. And again leaving it to others to figure out how much their governing which is really borrowing, is going to cost others later on.

The great political humorist P.J. who is a Libertarian and I don't think you could pay him to be a Democrat today and even if you could it might bankrupt the Democratic Party and perhaps major economies to get P.J. to even consider doing the Democratic Party, gave a speech at the National press Club several years ago talking about so-called Conservatives and fiscal responsibility. I wrote a piece for FRS Real Life Journal where I write lifestyle and entertainment, as well as humorous pieces and put the link of his speech on that blog. And you can see that here. FRS Real Life Journal

I argued back in 2014 that Republicans when they only controlled the House of Representatives while Barack Obama was will President and Democrats still controlled the Senate, that so-called fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, were just tools to blame the Democrats for the financial and economic problems of the country. Republicans and the Tea Party, only saw fiscal conservatism as a way to get back into power, but never as a tool to actually use to govern and finally bring down our deficits and debt. And with President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress, I'm being proven right everyday.
Source: FORA-TV P.J. O'Rourke: Conservatives and Fiscal Responsibility

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

TruthDig: Robert Scheer Interviewing Norman Lear- Bleeding Heart Conservative

Source: TruthDig-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

As as Liberal myself I hate the term bleeding heart liberal, because someone who cares about others and people who are suffering regardless of their politics could be labeled bleeding hearts. Now, these different political factions will have their own ideas and approaches in how to help people who are suffering. But to care about the suffering of others all you have to be is a caring person.

But thats not my only problem with the term bleeding heart liberal. Because then there also the stereotypes that come with that term. Liberals all the time even though I believe that is finally starting to change with Socialists in America like the Bernie Sanders democratic socialist movement and the ANTIFA more communist or anarchist socialist movement on the radical Far-Left and not just Far-Left, but Liberals in the past at least have been labeled as soft, to put it lightly.

 I would add the term pussies, because so-called Liberals seem to believe that criminals shouldn't be put in prison, even if they're violent. As non-aggressive pacifists that even if the country was under attacked we shouldn't fight back and instead extend out hands to the people who are trying to literally destroy us.

Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was President of the United States during the Cold War and Russia literally attacked us and bombed Florida or some other big place in America. President Kucinich, "if we just talk to Moscow, maybe they won't bomb all of Florida and we'll only lose Miami. If we fight back, maybe they won't bomb Georgia as well."

There's nothing liberal or bleeding heart about pacifism about when your country is under attack and you choose not to defend yourself. No political label goes with that amount of irresponsibility and softness. Even Socialists have defended themselves and fought for their countries. And just like you don't have to be a Conservative or someone further to the Right to believe in self-defense and patriotism, you don't have to be a Liberal or someone further left to care about the suffering of others.

I guess this article is supposed to have something to do with the great Norman Lear. Perhaps the title of the piece has something to do with that suggesting that he's a bleeding heart Conservative. Norman Lear describes his politics as conservative because he believes in conserving the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.  Which is what true Conservative is and actually believes. Not someone who believes in sending law enforcement agents to break into private homes to break up extra marital or homosexual affairs affairs, because the so-called Conservative believes that adultery and homosexuality, are not only immoral, but should be illegal.

Imagine if Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore ever becomes President of the United States and his able to get appoint and get confirm 3-4 Christian-Conservatives who are actually Christian-Theocrats, to the U.S. Supreme Court , then maybe adultery and homosexuality would get outlawed in America. If they were somehow able to get those laws passed out of Congress regardless if with party or party's are in control of the House and Senate.

But someone who is so fundamentalist with their religious beliefs to the point that they believe should be appointed Minister of the United States and be able legally punish people who disagree with them and have different moral values, is not a Conservative, but a theocrat which is different. Norman Lear's conservative politics represents conservatism, pure and simple. Roy Moore's politics represents Christian-Theocracy, which is very different, because Moore's politics aren't about the U.S. Constitution, but a very strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Norman Lear's writing and producing of comedy in America, is so cutting edge and his belief in the First Amendment is so fundamentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that) that I don't believe he could be writing and producing comedy today. Because people in and outside of Hollywood are so dominated by political correctness that if Lear created a modern Archie Bunker (perhaps played by Donald Trump) maybe Jon Voight, or Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) you would see the Political Correctness Police and Army, marching the streets complaining about how bigoted the new Archie Bunker, All in The Family, and even Norman Lear is. Of course they would be wrong, but these protests and boycotts would have a big enough affect to keep that type of First Amendment comedy and programming from making it on the air or into the theaters.
Source: The Young Turks Norman Lear: On NFL Protests and Donald Trump's America

Monday, October 23, 2017

The New Republic: Opinion- Jeet Heer: Sibling Rivalry: Democratic Socialists & Liberals

Source: The New Republic- Bernie Sanders & Nancy Pelosi, political tug of war-
Source: The New Republic: Opinion- Jeet Heer: Sibling Rivalry

What's going on in the Democratic Party today reminds me of what was going on post-JFK assassination in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Even though I wasn't born until 1975, of course I don't remember seeing this, but I read pretty well and watch a lot of documentaries. With John F. Kennedy in the White House the Democratic Left was essentially made up of Center-Left Progressives and Liberals. Democratic Socialists back then were still in the closet politically. Communists, were either in hiding or looking to escape both physically and politically to Cuba or Russia.

Back in the early 1960s you had the FDR/LBJ Progressive Democratic Coalition. And the JFK Liberal Democrats who believed in freedom and even capitalism, but that it should benefit everyone and not just people born to wealth and European-Americans. JFK Democrats would be what are called New Democrats today. The Center-Left Progressives and Liberals, tended too agree on foreign policy and national security issues, both were strong internationalists, anti-Communists, strong defense, effective law enforcement, fiscal responsibility, free trade, civil rights, equal rights, but tended to differ on the role of the Federal Government and what it should do for the people and how much it should tax.

It was Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, (Progressive Democrats)  that made America the economic and military power that it is today. Not all by themselves obviously, but moved us into the direction during World War II and after that. Liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy was an internationalist hawk on foreign policy and national security and probably hated communism as much as Ronald Reagan. But he also believed in civil rights and pushed for those things, as well as civil liberties, freedom of choice, right to privacy, didn't believe Americans should be highly taxed.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson pretty much all by himself, along with the JFK assassination, pretty much destroyed the old Democratic Party. The civil rights laws and the Great Society, moved the right-wing Dixiecrats (who would be called Nationalists today) out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party. Thanks to the Baby Boom coming of age in the the 1960s and the Vietnam War, Socialists in America (both Democratic and Communist) came out of the closet. Perhaps moving back from Cuba and Russia and into the Democratic Party.

Democrats started losing the South but started dominating the West Coast and Northeast with all of these new Socialists into the party. Who didn't think communism was a bad thing, who didn't like capitalism, who thought America was the real Evil Empire and I could go on, but I'll spare you. The New-Left in the Democratic Party came of age post-JFK assassination and into the LBJ Administration.

What we're seeing now in the Democratic Party is the Democratic Socialist (not Communist) wing of the New-Left, that is led by Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist Republic of Vermont) and the Nancy Pelosi Progressive Democratic wing of the Democratic Party led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Who comes from the New-Left socialist wing from the 1960s in San Francisco, but has moderated her radical views from the time before she was Democratic Leader, because she now represents and much broader party and caucus. My JFK Liberal Democratic wing is not as big or at least as vocal. Perhaps Senator Cory Booker and former Governor Martin O'Malley, now represent the Liberal Democrats in the party.

If the Democratic Party wants to win back the House and have even a shot at winning back the Senate in 2018, both the Center-Left Liberals and Progressives and Far-Left Socialists, are going to have to come together and work together, stop attacking each other because they believe one side is too centrist or radical. Come together on a agenda that brings new Democrats into the party and votes Democratic. And let the presidential primary season decide how far left the Democratic Party goes into the future, or do we remain a Center-Left party that we've been at least since the 1990s. Otherwise the party will break up and you won't see a large Democratic Party that can compete against the GOP in the future.
Source: The Late Show- Bernie Sanders: The Democrats Have To Become a Grassroots Party

Saturday, October 21, 2017

The Millennial Federalist: Federalist Coalition- An Awakening of Federalism

Source: United Project-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

If you want to know why the United States is a Federal Republic and you’re now an adult, well you missed that opportunity in high school during your social studies class. Perhaps you were too busy texting your classmate who sat right next to you to bother to take and learn social studies. If you’re currently in high school or about to enter high school, I’ll explain why we have a Federal Republic  and very limited government. At least compared with the social democracies, theocratic and military dictatorships around the world.

If you think Uncle Sam is too greedy and paternalistic and takes too much of your money and personal decision-making away from you, join the club. You might have to join a waiting list and have a better chance of winning multiple state lotteries on the same day than being able to join this club anytime soon, because it has somewhere around 200 hundred-million members, not including the Socialists who complain everyday about not being taxed enough and going crazy about all the personal and economic decisions that they have to make every day, As well as the Christian-Theocrats and Christian-Nationalists in America who complain that America is too decentralized and because of that states and localities get to make decisions everyday that violates their religious and moral values.

But if you think Uncle Sam is too greedy and too fat, I’ll introduce to King George from the United Kingdom of Britain. Who was so fat because of all the money he took from the American Colonies that he would make Paris Hilton look like a foodaholic today. To be completely serious for a moment and perhaps even multiple moments, the reason why America is a Federal Republic, is because the men who would become our Founding Fathers Englishmen who escaped mainland Britain to come to what would become America later on, were tired of London telling them what to do and taking most of their money from them. Two-hundred and forty-one years later Britain is till a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in a country of almost sixty-five million people resides in London.

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals actually) wanted to break away from that unitarianism form of government. And create a country where the power would be decentralized. Where yes, their would be a Federal Government primarily responsible for national security, foreign policy, interstate law enforcement, interstate commerce, interstate transportation. But where the states could take care of the issues and make policies that affect their people in their states. Where localities could do the same thing. Where you wouldn’t have Washington with some Federal Superintendent of Education, telling Milwaukee, Boston, and other cities how to educate their kids. How to police their streets, how to regulate their local business’s , and other examples.

In a huge vast country of three-hundred and twenty-million people (get your brain wrapped around that number for a moment) a Federal Republic and federalism are the only way you could be able to keep a country this huge and diverse, with all of our racial, ethnic, cultural, and political diversity, together. Otherwise California, Florida, Texas, New York, perhaps all the states in New England together, would break away from Washington and form their own independent countries. Because Uncle Sam can’t mind his own damn business and is too greedy and paternalistic telling states and localities in many cases thousands of miles away, six-thousand or so in the case of Hawaii. We have a Federal Republic and are not a unitarian social democracy, or a religious theocracy, in order to keep the country together. And come together when its in our national interest.
Source: Crash Course John Green: The Constitution, The Articles & Federalism

Friday, October 20, 2017

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever

Source: Vanity Fair-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren't that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy's White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster's Sam Giacana's girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what's the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn't affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn't even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn't even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn't come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn't universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn't come around until the early 1990s and wasn't mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica's father and of course was married, but then the fact that he's President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't serious and shouldn't have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should've been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton't wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they're now in the 90s that they're going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I'm referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.
Source: TED Monica Lewinsky: The Price of Shame

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles: Meet The Press 1977- Phyllis Schlafly Debating The ERA

Source: CNN-
Source: Phyllis Schlafly Eagles: Meet The Press 1977- Phyllis Schlafly Debating The ERA

This is one issue that I actually agree with Phyllis Schlafly and others on the Right from the Center-Right, to the lets say further if not Far-Right where Phyllis Schlafly and her movement in the 1970s and 1980s were. As well as the Center-Left where I am.

Phyllis Schlafly represented the Tea Party of the late 20th Century. But the Michele Bachmann wing of it that was a combination of Christian-Conservatives and economic Libertarians. People who didn't want a welfare state and even safety net, that at least came from the Federal Government. But who had very fundamentalist Christian views on social policy and believed in those views so strongly that they believed the rest of the country should follow and live by.

The way I would describe her movement was unlike Barry Goldwater who believed big government shouldn't be in our wallets or bedrooms, not in our economic or personal lives, Phyllis Schlafly and the Christian New-Right believed that big government should be out of our wallets and into our bedrooms. That homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and adultery, to use as examples, should be illegal. But taxes should be very low and regulations of the economy should be minimal.

The reasons why I oppose the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) I believe are different from Phyllis Schlafly. American women already have the same constitutional rights as men in the Constitution. The Federal courts have already ruled that the word man covers both men and women. And then you have the 1965 Civil Rights Act where women and men can't be discriminated against based on their gender, the ERA is simply not necessary.

Phyllis Schlafly argued that women are better off serving their men. Which comes from her fundamentalist Christian beliefs. That men should work and women should stay home and raise their kids. That women shouldn't have the same opportunities and freedom in society as men. As I argued before Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum mixed economic libertarianism, with Christian authoritarianism with their politics. A mixture of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee today. Michele Bachmann would probably be the best spokesperson for this movement today.

If you're a true Feminist that you believe men and women should be treated equally under law and not rewarded or punished simply because of their gender, than you oppose the ERA. Because men and women are already supposed to be treated equally under law and under the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act already guarantees equal treatment under law and in the private sector. That no race, ethnicity, or gender, should be treated better or worse  simply because of their physical heritage. But if you're a true Feminist you should also oppose the Phyllis Shclafly Eagles, because she believed that women should be subservient of men. That its the job of men to take care of women.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Reason Magazine: Robby Soave- Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct & Its Killing Comedy

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Mel Brooks is damn right here! Now, imagine if I said damn right in a movie or on TV back in lets say 1952, I probably would've been expelled from Hollywood back then for using the word damn, because it would have offended someone's religious and moral values. Which was a form of political correctness from a different time.

If comedians, writers, and other commentators, don't have the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone who wears underwear that is way too tight for them, or is a coffee or Red Bull junky and is so wound up they couldn't fall asleep even if they watched a PBS telethon for 48 hours straight and simply does not know how to relax, who has a glass jaw for an ego and the slightest form of criticism like telling them they're 30 seconds late absolutely destroys their glass jaw, meaning to put it simply, that they can't take a joke. They can't even handle criticism that is fair and even accurate. If people with glass jaws become in charge of what is appropriate and inappropriate in comedy and other forms of communication, well yes we can then make the appropriate funeral arraignments for comedy in America.

Because it will die simply because comedians, writers, and other commentators won't want to take a risk and make fun of something or someone that can later sue them for it, put in jail, or risk losing their job because they're not politically correct. They'll simply find something better to do with their time and find another way to make a living. Perhaps instead of performing on stage, they'll perform in private clubs where you only get in by invitation. Perform at private homes. Perhaps write books and articles, but the only people who'll get to read them are people they approve of who won't turn them into the Political Correctness Police. Maybe they'll have and give private readings of their material.

You take away comedians ability to perform and express themselves, you're taking away comedy in America. And we'll be left with comedians making fun of the Christian-Right and what the Far-Left calls White people and White trash. Because anyone who understands political correctness in America knows that the Far-Left pretty much dominates it.

Which makes modern political correctness hypocritical and partisan , because jokes about fundamentalist Christians especially if they're also Protestant and of Southern English background, are considered acceptable, but you make a joke about fundamentalist Muslims especially people who believe in and practice Islamism, you're considered a racist by the New-Left in America. People who are Socialists and even what I would at least call Neo-Communists, because they believe in  a certain level of democracy, but where communication should only be limited to people who think and believe the way they do.

So if you make a white trash joke, you're considered progressive by this community. But you make fun of ghetto people, you're considered a racist. Political correctness from so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left in America, is about as hypocritical as Donald Trump calling someone selfish, or accusing someone of being too self-centered, as consistent as one of Donald Trump's political positions.

Political correctness is kryptonite for comedy in America. One thing that you would think that could never die in America is comedy, because of our free speech rights that are guaranteed by our First Amendment and the fact that we have a lot of stupid people and dishonest people who tend to be our politicians that are elected by most of our stupid people. But the one thing that could kill comedy is political correctness.

And no, people will never be arrested for cracking a joke about someone that offends them, or perhaps not even sued for it because it would probably get thrown out, unless the Political Correctness Police takes over our judiciary. But what would happen instead is that people will be afraid to be funny and take risks, because they're worried about the aftermath from people who again wear underwear that is too tight, or drink too much Starbucks or Red Bull and simply can't handle criticism about themselves, or people they claim to care about.  The way you kill comedy even in America, is not just by having too many oversensitive tight asses in America, but actually having those people in charge and running things for everyone else.
Source: Wochit Entertainment: Mel Brooks- Political Correctness is "Death of Comedy"

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Sam Harris: Waking Up With Sam Harris- Mark Lilla: What Happened To Leftism

Source: Sam Harris-
Source: Sam Harris: Waking Up With Sam Harris- Mark Lilla: What Happened To Leftism?

It sort of pains me to say this (ha, ha) but this is an area where I agree with right-wing talk show host and writer Dennis Prager. He separates liberalism with what he calls leftism. Leftism to him is this fringe left-wing political movement in America that sees as its role to defend the under dog generally and almost always racial and sometimes ethnic minorities who are also of Caucasian background. Jews, Latinos, and other ethnic groups that have a history of being discriminated against in America. As well as religious minorities like Jews again, Catholics of all sorts of ethnic and racial backgrounds and Muslims who are of different ethnic and racial backgrounds today and aren't just Arab, but from other Middle Eastern backgrounds as well.

What Dennis Prager would call a Leftist and supporter of leftism, is someone who sees their job as to defend anyone who would be an underdog and someone who faces discrimination from the majority European Protestant majority in America. Especially English-Protestants in America. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, Progressives were the people defending Jews from ethnic genocide in Europe and took America to war in Europe to fight Nazi Germany and try to save European-Jews from the Nazis. The 1950s and 1960s, Progressives and Democratic Socialists in America, people like Dr. Martin Luther King, were campaigning and organizing for civil rights to protect African-Americans from racial discrimination. Which is what became the civil rights movement. From the 1970s and on Progressives and Democratic Socialists, have fought for equal protection for gays.

What we're seeing today is not much of a progressive movement on the left, certainly Far-Left. What we see now are Far-Leftists who in many cases aren't just illiberal, but also regressive. People who not only believe that underdogs (meaning minorities) deserve special protection in society, but have some special right to not be criticized and have to hear anything that is critical and negative about them. Even if the criticism and negativity is accurate about them. For example saying that Muslims believes women are inferior to men and that there are Muslim nations in the Middle East and other places where women are inferior under law to men, that pointing these facts out in public is somehow racist and bigoted towards Muslims.

Ben Affleck who is the perfect example of why entertainers shouldn't automatically be considered a credible source when it comes politics and current affairs. Said that criticizing Muslims is racist. Well, Ben gets a couple things wrong there. The obvious one being that Muslim is not a race, but people who follow Islam. The second problem that Ben has is that simply critiquing Islam is not bigoted. Especially if your critique is accurate.

What I'm talking about here is the so-called social justice warrior movement, which is really the political correctness movement on the Far-Left. People who believe that minorities have a special right not to be criticized. Unless those minorities are right-wingers then right-wing minorities like Professor Walter Williams who is African-American and a Libertarian, someone like that can be criticized by the Far-Left in America according to the Far-Left. Because someone like Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, are considered sellouts and Uncle Toms and not considered what militants on the Far-Left and Far-Leftists in the African-American community, they would say that Williams and Sowell aren't black enough and are what they would called whiteys with black skin.

Dennis Prager separates Liberals, which is what I am and proud to be, with Leftists or what I would call Far-Leftists. People who are Socialists and in some cases who are mainstream Democratic Socialists who want to maintain private enterprise in America, but combine it with social democracy. But who are still small d democrats. The Bernie Sanders movement in America.

The Bernie Sanders movement in America are still Far-Left when it comes to their economic and political views in America, but who look mainstream compared with the fringe socialist political correctness Far-Left in America who have Communists and Anarchists in their movement. Who see it as their job to tear down the American system and American form of government. Who have violent tendencies and believe the Far-Right and other right-wingers don't have a right to even exist, let alone speak in America. That free speech in America only protects the Far-Left.

Dennis Prager separates Liberals from what he calls Leftists and what I call Far-Leftists. I only say that again to make this point. I separate Far-Leftists with Liberals and Progressives. Progressives are the people I mentioned in the first two paragraphs the people who fought to save the European-Jews from the German Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. Who fought for civil rights laws in the 1950s and 1960s to protect African-Americans, as well as other racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds from discrimination under law and in the private sector. Who fought for the creation of the American safety net for people who truly need it which is what gave us the New Deal in the 1930s and the Great Society in the 1960s.

Progressives are people who believe in progress and using government to build a better society where everyone can succeed. Using government from  revenue that was created from a large private sector to build a better society for everyone. When I think of Progressives I think of people like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, people of that ideological background.

Not people who believe that the America is the real and only evil empire in the world. That law enforcement is authoritarian and bigoted. That capitalism is racist and individualism is selfish. Progressives aren't anti-military, or anti-law enforcement, or anti-capitalist, or anti-individaulust, or even anti-establishment. They're true American Patriots who believe in American values and who love America, but like true American Patriots, but who believe America can always be better.

What we see now from the New-Left that was originally created in the 1960s and has always been around since because of fringe leftists from the Baby Boom Generation, as well as their children and grandchildren, are people who are just illiberal (which is the opposite of liberal) but people who are regressive. Which is sort of the opposite of progressive. They're regressive and even fascist because they are people who believe that people who don't think like them and look at the same world as they do, don't have a right to speak and even exist. They'll even use violence to accomplish their political goals.

What has happened to leftism as Dennis Prager and I would call it, is that the Far-Left has almost completely separated from the Center-Left, which is what we're seeing in the Democratic Party. Before the Center-Left and Far-Left could work together accomplish similar goals. Now they see each other as opponents. And true Liberals and Progressives, should separate from Socialists and especially Communists, because the Far-left is illiberal and regressive and don't represents our values.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Constitution Daily: NCC Staff- Looking Back: George Carlin & The U.S. Supreme Court

Source: Constitution Daily-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The blog writes a lot about political correctness and fascism, because we write a lot about comedy and write comedy ourselves and without free speech which is what political correctness and fascism tries to restrict (obviously, duh, you don't say!) there would't be any comedy and even political satire. Which is why I'm always amused if not confused when so-called left-wing comedians and other entertainers make calls for political correctness because they think some material is offensive.

Because without free speech there wouldn't be any comedy. I mean, if political correctness ran this country instead of the First Amendment, comedians wouldn't be able to crack jokes about anybody. Especially the people who deserve to be made fun of. Like our politicians, just to use as an example. Entertainers attacking free speech is very ironic. Because speech is what fuels comedy, as well as self-awareness and what's going on around you in life. Even comedians have stood up for political correctness against free speech, like Michael Moore and others. Even John Oliver, Stephanie Miller, John Fugelsang, would be other examples.

A comedian attacking free speech, is like a race car driver saying oil and gas are bad for the environment and therefor should be outlawed. Oil and gas literally fuel that race car driver's career. Without it, he might be flipping burgers or selling lemonade. Or a pro football player saying football is too violent and therefor tackling should be outlawed. Who would go watch professional flag football? As the great comedian Mel Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy because comedians are worried about offending oversensitive tight asses, who think they're the only perfect human beings on the face of the Earth who don't deserve to be made fun of. Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy. The second part is my line.

George Carlin is not the first victim of political correctness when it comes to comedy. You could argue at least that Lenny Bruce back in the 1950s and 60s has that uthonorable title. But George and Lenny, are from the same generation. Lenny would literally go on stage using cuss words as part of his act and I'm not talking about hell or damn, but he would talk about sex and talk about how people would have sex with each other and put it bluntly. And then would literally be arrested on stage for using foul language. George has  a similar but different story.

George would go on stage and literally use words like shit, fuck, mother fucker, mother fucking fucking, and others and these were part of the so-called seven dirty words that comedians weren't supposed to use in Phyllis Schlafly's 1950s America, where you weren't even allowed to say God, Jesus, and hell, at least not on TV.

Liberal democracy which has a practically guaranteed right for free speech in America under are First Amendment. The only exceptions having to do with falsely libeling, inciting violence, or harassment, like leaving obscene message on someone's voice mail, to use as an example. This is not the place for oversensitive tight asses who look at the mirror and only see perfection. Or have a glass jaw for an ego and can't take the smallest bit of criticism without breaking out in tears and flooding their homes from all of their perspiration. I don't know, maybe Canada is a country for people like that.

If you don't like offensive material, then don't watch it or listen to it! Only watch PBS and C-SPAN if you can't handle criticism about yourself and groups you believe have constitutional protection not to be criticized that no one else has. With liberal democracy comes a lot of individual freedom, but with that comes responsibility and the fact that you're not the only one who lives here and you have the same freedom and responsibility that everyone else has. And might from time to time hear and see things that you disapprove of. But so will everyone else.
Source: Foundation Interviews 

Foundation Interviews: George Carlin- On His Supreme Court Seven Dirty Words Case

Saturday, October 14, 2017

HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- The Confederacy

Source: HBO-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I believe this is an example of where Britain is very different from America. In Britain, you basically only have one government because the United Kingdom is a unitarian government with most of the governmental power in the country rests with London in England which gets to decide how the rest of the country including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and yes England which is actually a territory that is part of Britain, gets to live. Apparently too many people aren't aware of that and talk about England as if its  some independent country and talk about England as if they're talking about France or Germany.

America is very different where power is much more decentralized. We don't just have fifty states and those fifty states aren't Federal agencies. Their independent jurisdictions that are part of a nation state known as the United States and have jurisdiction over their own affairs in their state. So if Alabama wants to have confederate statues, thats their business. Even if it offends oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies that have nothing better to do with their nights like gee I don't know, studying, getting laid, and instead spend their nights protesting Halloween, Thanksgiving, and now confederate statues.

So if we were in Britain right now whether it was Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, and someone was offended by some statue, Parliament could just declare that statue offensive or the Prime Minister could just do that by herself and that statue would automatically be eliminated. Even if the people in Glasgow, Belfast, Cardiff, or Manchester, aren't offended by the statue themselves, at least not a majority of the people. But we're obviously not in Britain and neither is John Oliver.

If someone is offended by a statue in Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, Philadelphia, Boston, or wherever else in America, sure they could complain about it and even peacefully protest against it. But don't expect Congress to pass some law telling some city or cities that they have to remove a certain statue because it offends someone or a group of people. Perhaps especially a group of oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies, who keep local coffee houses and Red Bull in business by themselves.

 Because Congress would be out of their jurisdiction. And don't expect the President to even comment on it. Other than maybe President Donald Trump who will say that there's nothing wrong with having confederate statues. He might complain about having statues that honor African-Americans who fought for the Union in the Civil War, but thats a different issue.

"Mind your own damn business!" Is one of my favorite phrases. I'm not an indifferent person and I see bad things that happen to people all the time that make me feel bad because some innocent person had to experience that. But unless there's something that is really bad that is going on in Maryland, especially involving the State Government and Annapolis is trying to pass some law that I really don't like, I could really care less if Alabama or any other Bible Belt state tries to honor some Confederate figure. Or tries to pass some big government law that tries to outlaw homosexuality, or gambling, to use as examples.

We have a Federal Republic and as along as the states are passing laws that are within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights. Big government laws like banning homosexuality violate the Constitution and would get thrown simply because they violate the Fourth Amendment and our right to privacy. But as long as any state is within the Constitution and putting up statues and keeping older statues is certainly within the Constitution, states can honor anybody from the Confederacy that they choose too. And if people are offended by that, they can always vote with their feet (to quote to Ronald Reagan) and move to a state that is more politically correct with the times.
HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- The Confederacy

Friday, October 13, 2017

The Ripon Society: The Ripon Forum- Gregory Koger: Preserve The Filibuster- Protect People From Political Parties

Source: The Ripon Society- Gregory Koger-
Source: The Ripon Society: The Ripon Forum- Gregory Koger: Preserve The Filibuster- Protect People From Political Parties

Before I get into the Republican hypocrisy about the Senate filibuster which is as loud as Metallica heavy metal concert unclose with no earplugs and as obvious as the Grand Canyon is big, I just want to get to the constitutional arguments about the Senate filibuster.

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all Federal legislative powers with Congress. Under the U.S. Constitution Congress writes their own rules. So the Senate decided to have a filibuster and cloture rule. The House decide to have an almost completely majoritarian framework in how they run their business. Which is both the right of the Senate and House of Representatives to write and enforce their rules the way they decide to. Whatever rules they make for themselves are constitutional. Its the laws that Congress passes together that are subjected to judicial rules by the Federal judiciary.

Now the more fun side of this debate. Where were GOP calls for eliminating the Senate filibuster and calling it unconstitutional the first two years of the Obama Administration when Democrats controlled Congress and even had 3/5 majorities in both the House and Senate? But under then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a few Senate Democrats as well, were still able to block some bills proposed and passed by House Democrats. Like extending Unemployment Insurance and additional stimulus bills to the economy. Senate Republicans were able to do this because they stayed inline and prevented Democrats from getting 3/5 majority vote in the Senate.

Or where was the GOP call to eliminate the filibuster from 2011-15 when there were two divided Congress's because House Republicans won back the House in 2010 and held onto majority in 2012. With Senate Democrats keeping the Senate in 2010 and 2012? Senate Republicans with 47 and then later 45 members, were able to block a whole list of Obama Administration executive and later judicial appointments simply by preventing Senate Democrats from obtaining 60 votes. Which is why then Senate Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster in 2013 on executive and judicial nominees.

There are very good reasons why Congress is more unpopular than traveling salesman, lawyers, trial lawyers and make conmen look like good decent moral people. One of those reasons is hypocrisy.

Members of Congress will say they believe in fiscal responsibility and even fiscal conservatism. Until they become fiscally responsible at least in the sense that they're now in power and in control of the nation's fiscal policy. They run against deficit spending when they're in the opposition, especially when they're in both the opposition and minority, which is where Republicans were in 2010 and 2011. And then whey come back into power which is where Republicans are now, deficits no longer seem to matter to them. Especially if they have political priorities and objectives and things they need to accomplish in order to get reelected in 2018.

Why try to pay for tax relief and tax reform and ask people to pay for those things with few government services, when you can just finance those things on the national credit card and get way with it, if they're successful in passing it this year? Being in the political opposition is easy in the sense that you can complain all you want and not really pay any price for it. But governing is difficult because it means making decisions and risking offending groups that you may need to win reelection. Which is where the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans find themselves now.

Republican complaints about the Senate filibuster today and Congress failing to move on anything because legislation getting blocked in the Senate, well their a couple of problems with that.

One, the House isn't passing much if any legislation right now either. At least legislation that even Senate Republicans want to deal with. So maybe the GOP should look at their colleagues in the House when it comes to gridlock or their own Senate Leadership. But the second reason is more obvious and is nothing more than hypocrisy on a month long sugar high. The GOP was in favor of the filibuster when they were in the opposition, especially the opposition and minority, because they could use it to obstruct the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans. Now they're against it because they're divided and can't seem to find enough votes to even pass legislation with a simple majority, let alone a super majority. Opposition to the filibuster is nothing more than political hypocrisy at this point and a big example of why Americans hate politics and hate Congress.
Source: Now This World- U.S. Senate Rand Paul

Now This World: Trace Dominguez- U.S. Senator Rand Paul: What Is a Filibuster?