This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Monday, March 19, 2018

The Onion: Pros and Cons of Free Speech on College Campuses

Source: The Onion
Source: The Onion: Pros and Cons of Free Speech on College Campuses

To be completely serious second ( which seems to go against everything that The Onion stands for ) a pro for being in favor of free speech on campus is that you get to learn other views and what people who don't think or look like you. Perhaps who've gotten through an entire school day at least without their favorite fancy coffee drink, perhaps don't even have a favorite fancy coffee drink and perhaps even gotten through a whole hour without staring at their smartphone, or least gotten through that hour without a jaw dropping OMG expression on their face.

Well, that was mostly serious, but you get to hear views that are different from your own. You get to experience what living in a liberal democracy is like. What life at college is like and again we're talking about college which is supposed to be an institution of higher learning. Even in Alabama and Mississippi where perhaps their higher learning doesn't reach the top floor and in some cases struggles to get to the second floor. ( Hey, when you produce the Roy Moore's of the world, you're going to get jokes like that. )

A con I guess if you want to look at it that way and perhaps tend to look at life from a glass half empty I need I anti-drepressent pills right away or I going to die, is that of course you'll hear opinons and views that you not only disagree with but find offensive. And you might actually hear views that literally are offensive and not just critical views that some narcissistic tight ass who thinks they're the only perfect person God ( unless you're an Atheist ) has created believes are offensive even if they're just critical and even accurate.

But so what, what were you expecting when you decided to go to college? You learn about life there and what life will be like once your'e out of college and can hopefully afford and more expensive and bigger place to live than you parent's basement. If you want to be part of world where everyone thinks and acts the same, join a cult, or move to some communist or other authoritarian state. But if you want to live in a free world you have to accept responsibilities and realities that life there is not the same for everyone and not everyone thinks and believes in the same things.

And in that world you have people who didn't get any higher learning. Perhaps that was because they went to college in Alabama or Mississippi, or were to busy staring at their smartphone, when they should've been listening to their teachers and studying. Freedom is not free and life certainly isn't free either. When you live in a free society you have the freedom to be yourself and think for yourself, but what comes with that is that everyone else has that same freedom that you and might not look at things and think like you. Which is also a plus because it's how people get to know each other and learn about each other. Which make freedom and diversity so great which is the ability to learn and self-improve.
The Onion: Supreme Court Revokes Annoying Man's Free Speech Rights

Friday, March 16, 2018

George Carlin: 'Life is Worth Losing'- Dumb Americans

Source: George Carlin
Source: George Carlin: 'Life is Worth Losing'- Dumb Americans

Warning! This piece might contain language that may offend people who are still living in the 1950s and forgot to move with the times in America as the rest of country moved forward without them.

Just to say one thing about George Carlin: Goddammit George Carlin fuckin cussed a lot! What the fuck was his fuckin problem? What kind of asshole fuckin cusses that much? God dammit he must have been fuckin pissed off. Not that I would ever tell him to watch his fuckin language, because someone like that who is generally that angry not just at people, but basically an entire country, probably wouldn't like that humor and perhaps not have even understood it. But he might have grasped the hypocrisy from a statement like that.

As far as stupid people in America, not saying we have a monopoly on that compared with the rest of the world. Especially with countries that don't allow women to even drive cars or show themselves in public, who murder people simply for being gay through government force. As well as terrorists who murder people simply for not being Muslim, as well as gay. But we might have more than our share of stupid people especially with a region of the country that values their religion over education and knowledge. That alone can create a lot of problems there when people who simply don't respect knowledge and think Jesus or whoever they pray to is all they need. That alone would qualify as stupid thinking, or lack of thinking.

See, people who don't have knowledge tend to be stupid. Knowledgable people tend to be intelligent. The actual definition of intelligent is someone who is having or showing intelligence, especially at a high level. The actually definition of stupid, is having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. Someone who takes America to war over bogus ( to be overly generous ) evidence that never existed in the first place, is the classic definition of s stupid decision. Making a decision on no real evidence and information.

Buying stuff ( or in many cases junk ) that you simply don't need and are buying it perhaps only because it's a status symbol for you like buying that latest smartphone simply because it's the latest smartphone, even though you bought the latest smartphone last week, would qualify as a stupid decision. Even if it did allow you to be one of the first five people to share that latest purchase on Facebook, Twitter, or perhaps my favorite Google+. Sure! That decision made you look like totally awesome ( or whatever ) for an entire five minutes. But now you have two smartphones that you're not using and still paying for both of them.

When you have a country that is as vast and diverse from all sorts of vantage points and not just racially and ethnically, a country that is also as free and individualistic as we are ( at least outside of pop culture,where most people look like a clone of the latest hot celebrity ) and then you have an entire population that values their religious and cultural beliefs over knowledge, reason, and science, you're going to have a lot of stupid people. Because you're going to have a lot of people who are literally free to do whatever they want short of hurting innocent people, including deciding to not be educated and not believe evidence and facts. This is why America at times at least can look like a national morons convention where everyone is late, because everyone went to the wrong place for the convention.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Victor D. Hanson: Rethinking Watergate

Source: Hoover Institution
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I look at Watergate now more than 45 years after the 1972 break in and almost 45 years after Congress starts to look into the the Watergate break in and the 1972 presidential election with the Senate Watergate Select Committee,  in a couple of ways.

First, just the pure stupidity of it from several vantage points and perhaps the biggest being how unnecessary it was. We know that President Richard Nixon didn’t personally order the Watergate break in. Why, because he was already ahead of Senator George McGovern ( the 1972 Democratic nominee for president ) by 20 points or more at this point during the summer of 1972.

Not so much because breaking and entering into private property is morally wrong and illegal. That is probably not the reason why President Nixon didn’t order the break in, but because it would’ve been politically stupid for him to do that. Especially with a Democratic Congress with clear majorities in both the House and Senate. With network news media and the print media being such huge forces. The risks of these bunglers, I mean burglars screwing up the break in and perhaps not even finding anything that President Nixon could use against Senator McGovern. Unfortunately Richard Nixon tended to operate from purely partisan political calculations, instead of morality and doing what’s morally right and so-forth. Which is one of the reasons for his downfall, along with his paranoia and lack of self-confidence.

The other thing that makes Watergate so stupid and even laughable now at this point, but perhaps by 1973 or so, is that the crew that was put together and how they were put together and actually did the Watergate operation. ( If you want to call it that ) If you’re going to order a break in of private property and you’re not personally involved in physically committing the crime yourself, you would think that you would hire professional burglars to do the operation. You could learn that just from watching any half-decent caper movie.

That you don’t hire auto mechanics to perform brain surgery. You don’t hire dentists to represent you in court when you’re being charged with murder. You hire brain surgeons to perform brain surgery, criminal defense lawyers to defend you and when you’re being charged with crimes, and you hire professional burglars to pull off break ins. The Watergate break in team were former CIA officers who were accustomed to working in other countries and getting information for the U.S. Government. They weren’t professional burglars or criminals of any background. The Watergate break in was Amateur Night at the Watergate and when these guys knew they were a helluva lot of trouble and looking at doing 20 years or more in prison, they decided to talk to the prosecutors and that is where President Nixon freaks out or perhaps before that and decides to try to cover it up.

The Nixon reelection effort, looks like a bunch of guys in high school who decide to run for class president and pick one guy to run with his friends helping him out with the campaign, With this of course being the first time that any of them are ever involved in any political campaign ever. Not that different from the Donald Trump presidential campaign of 2016. You have a long list of 10-15 men who worked for President Nixon during the early 1970s either for the Administration or reelection campaign, who ended up in prison. Who pre-Nixon and perhaps post-Nixon were by enlarge good, intelligent, moral, productive people, but who got in way over their heads during this presidential campaign and simply made a lot of horrible decisions that put them all in prison. Watergate is a tragedy because of how stupid and unnecessary it was and the damage that these people did to themselves.
Source: CBS News: 45 Years After Watergate- Political Scandals Then & Now

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

The Atlantic: Helen Keller- 'The Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen- 1932

Source: The Atlantic
Source: The Atlantic: Helen Keller- 'The Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen'

It you were born let's say yesterday or at the very least have a personality and even intelligence level that makes you seem so young, naive, inexperienced, and innocent that you come off as someone who was born yesterday and perhaps don't even remember the 1990s, unlike some of us who were actually adults during a lot of that decade, 1932 and the 1930s could seem like a century ago. Like explaining the civil war to a 11th grade high school American history class in 1985 or something.

But there was a time even well before I was born where even though there was never any law saying that women weren't allowed to work and become professionals in America or simply low-skilled low-income employees or blue-collar middle class employees where you only needed a high school diploma to get a good job in America, women weren't expected to work at all outside of the house in America. They weren't seen as slaves to their men which is what Africans were pre-civil war in America in the South, but perhaps just a step up. And at the very least were seen as servants to their men and children.

Joe Wilson would go out and work during the day earning a good living for himself, his wife, and kids. His wife Mary Wilson would stay home and raise their kids and take care of the house. The cooking, cleaning, getting the kids to and from school, etc. The whole family would meet in the dining room at around 7PM for dinner or perhaps Joe would take his wife and kids out for dinner to celebrate his new raise or promotion or whatever it might be.

That is what life was like in America before 1965 ( I still wasn't born yet ) or so. Joe worked and Mary stayed home at least once they were married and took care of the family and household. And there was never any government law requiring that women stayed home while men would work outside of the home. It was just a cultural norm, or a Phyllis Schlafly marijuana high or fantasy come true.

Not saying that all Christians are fundamentalists, Evangelical, or even Protestant, but there is a wing in that religion that view this period the 1930s through the 1950s as their Utopia. Their Christian Utopia where America was moral and before what they view as moral crisis that has been plaguing America as they would see it since the 1960s. Not sure a crisis can last 50 years or more, at some point the crisis has to stop and a new way of doing things and new norm emerges instead. But fundamentalist Christians or Christian-Nationalists, point to these 30 years from 1930 to 1960 or so as America's golden age where everything was utopian for them.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- Issues With Conservatism, Health Care & Donald Trump

Source: The Rubin Report
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- On Issues With Conservatism, Health Care & Donald Trump

The first part of this interview Dave Rubin and David Frum are talking about Canada and Canadian politics and what I'm interested here since David Frum is Conservative ( as he puts it ) is that what it means to be a Canadian Conservative is even different from what it means to even be a British Conservative. And certainly different from what it means to be an American Conservative whether you're talking about Conservative-Libertarians ( the real Conservatives in America ) and extremely different from what it means to a a Religious-Conservative. Whether you're talking about Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever else when it comes to Religious-Conservatives.

Canadian Conservatives are to the right of British Conservatives. British Conservatives operate in a socialist unitarian social democratic state in the United Kingdom, where Conservatives there in many cases are just less socialist than the Labour Party. Especially Jermey Corbyn ( the Leader of the Labour Party ) who represents the Far-Left of the Labour Party. But Canadian Conservatives are to the left of both Conservative-Libertarians on economic policy at least, and to the left of Christian-Conservatives in America are on social policy.

The main differences between Canadian Conservatives from lets say the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative-Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, is that Canadian Conservatives believe limited government, fiscal responsibility, a large private sector where private enterprise and economic freedom are encouraged, but where there is a large generous welfare state for people who truly need it. That taxes and regulations on businesses should be fairly low, but individuals are taxed fairly high to fund their welfare state like their national health insurance system.

When I think of a Conservative and yes of course I'm looking at this from the perspective of an American and maybe if I had duel citizenships I could look at Conservative from multiple national perspectives, but just as an American I look at Conservative from a U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, individual rights, traditionalist, standpoint. That the job of government is to defend the republic and defend our individual rights. Encourage individual freedom instead of using big government to try to manage people's lives for them either from an economic or personal perspective. Sounds very similar to my own liberal politics but we differ on the role of government as it relates to welfare policy. But tend to share very similar if not identical principles. 

Monday, March 12, 2018

The Onion: 'Dozens of Other Countries That Interfered With 2016 Election Annoyed Russia Getting All The Credit'

Source: The Onion- The Real Vladimir Putin - President of The Russian Federation-
Source: The Onion: 'Dozens Of Other Countries That Interfered With 2016 Election Annoyed Russia Getting All The Credit'

When I think of this Onion article, I go back to I believe the first Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump presidential debate in 2016 where someone asked Trump did he believe Russia was responsible for hacking into the election campaigns and hacking into the DNC emails and Trump said, "it could be Russia, it could be a lot of other countries, but it could also be some 400 pound and lying in bed in New Jersey or somewhere who is responsible for the hacking. We don't know who is responsible for it." In that same debate Hillary called Donald a puppet for Vladimir Putin. Truer statements have never come out of Hillary's mouth than that. The only dictator in the world that President Trump won't criticize is the Russian dictator President Vladimir Putin.

To say Donald Trump doesn't operate, live or even have visited the same planet that sane competent American call Planet Earth, is like saying that Wisconsin tends to see snow in January. Or it can get hot in the Arizona desert during the summer. Seattle tends to see some rain and overcast every year and people there like coffee and are into new technology. Jazz music is popular in New Orleans, Washington especially Congress and the White House, has more than their share of bullshit and hot air, as well as humidity. You would be doing the best imitation of Captain Obvious the world has ever seen to the point that you would be for not only a Golden Globe but an Oscar on the same night.

Big Don simply sees things that aren't there. And that's assuming he's not an complete idiot and is being straight up when he says he doesn't believe Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 elections ( because his good friend Vladimir Putin told him so ) even though his own National Security Council and his own intelligence community where President Trump is personally responsible for the appointments of all of these national security and intelligence officials to work for President Trump and give him the best national security and intelligence advice that they possibly can. What they're telling the President and hold him more than a year ago is that Russia interfered into the 2016 presidential election.

But Donald Trump with an ego the size of the Sahara Desert simply can't bring his mind around to accepting that, because that would imply that Russia is partially responsible for the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States instead of Trump deserving all the credit ( or blame ) for that himself. Any responsible, sane, competent, intelligent, reality based, ( not reality TV ) person would've acknowledged as soon the evidence came out perhaps as early as November or December of 2016, that of course Russia interfered with the 2016 elections as Donald Trump said himself he wanted Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's emails and releases the non released emails during the summer that year, because that is where the evidence points to.

Because responsible, sane, competent, intelligent, reality based ( not reality TV ) people have their reputations to protect and don't want to be perceived as not knowing what's going on and don't want to be divorced from reality like a gold digger who wants to divorce their wealthy spouse as soon as they have a lot of their money. Good, responsible, intelligent, sane people, don't want to be seen as idiots. President Trump apparently doesn't have that problem to worry about because he could care less if he's seen by an idiot even by people who personally work for him ( and that is already happening, just ask his Secretary of State ) as long as he gets what he wants. Which is to perform and entertain and try to convince people of seeing things that simply don't exist, because those perceptions or lies make him look better than he deserves to look.

Donald Trump doesn't live in a reality based world, but in a reality TV based world known as Donald Trump. With the latest series taking place at The White House as President of the United States. Some people have suggested ( me included ) that the name of President Trump's latest reality TV show is Amateur Night at The White House. He sees and acknowledges what he wants to even if those things obviously don't exist. Which in many ways is very funny and how you get an Onion article written about you and how someone writes a piece for their blog about you with that Onion link. But in most if not every other way it's very sad and dangerous to have a President of the United States who is so far divorced from reality and not able to make decisions based on reality and the best available evidence at the time.
Source: The Onion: The Onion Has Obtained Hundreds of Classified Documents From The Trump White House

Friday, March 9, 2018

Politics and Prose: Bruce Bartlett- 'The Truth Matters'

Source: Politics and Prose
Source: Politics and Prose: Bruce Bartlett- 'The Truth Matters'

I don't want to make this all about Donald Trump, but when I thinking about The Truth Matters I think of that Kellyanne Conway line from February last year I believe when she's on NBC's Meet The Press with Chuck Todd and Todd asks her something about the truth and facts and Kellyanne looking back at it I believe she was somewhat reluctant in saying this because of how bad it would sound and make her look with the mainstream media going after her for about a week on this, but she said, well there are alternative facts. With Todd essentially saying that no, there aren't alternative fact. There's the truth and then there are falsehoods.

Alternative facts and Martians have one thing in common and even that is only one thing it's a very important thing, they don't exist.

You have facts which is the truth and and how people know what's going on with either themselves or people around them or in society in general.

There are falsehoods things that simply aren't true. And then there's garbage ( to be nice ) which is a nice way of saying lies.

The truth is what's going on and what's happening what we know to be true. America is a federal republic. That would be one truth.

Falsehoods are things that are simply wrong and people unintentionally say falsehoods all the time thinking what they said is correct not having the right information with them at the time that they said what they said or did what they did. Like the weather report saying that i's going to rain tomorrow and maybe it's an overcast day but the weather is dry the whole day because the storm moved onto another area.

And there's garbage or lies when people are representing things as the truth that simply aren't true. Like Donald Trump claiming he would work all the time and not spend as much time playing golf as President Obama. That was obviously a lie.

There's no such thing as freedom without facts and real hard information that people have to have to make the right decisions. Without the truth you're a blind person with eyes feeling your way around the world never knowing for sure what's in front of you. But with the truth, as well as a sane, sound, intelligent, sober, experienced mind, you can be as free as a bird and do anything that you're personally capable of doing. The truth and always knowing what's going on and always knowing the truth about your self is the most important and effective tool and freedom that anyone can have. And when people especially public officials are caught telling either falsehoods or flat-out lying it's the job of the media and the public especially to always hold those people accountable. To promote this most important tool that people have and discourage the archenemy of the truth which is falsehoods and nonsense.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Daniel J. Mitchell: 'Three More Reasons To Laugh At Communism'- Wait, There's More

Source: Daniel J. Mitchell
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I sort of look at Communists and communism like the way teachers might look at poor students. Students who fail the exact same tests over and over who simply don’t do the work they’re assigned and don’t learn the lessons that they’re taught. That old cliche those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

We know communism doesn’t work, at least anyone with a brain who is mentally competent, sane, sober, and capable of learning. And yet it still exists in a lot of the third world in and now even in a country like Venezuela which is an energy independent country and at one point one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. Similar to how Chile and Brazil are today. We know it doesn’t work and yet people keep trying to make it work and keep trying to experiment with it.

A look at Communist lack of logic-

“Maybe if we only nationalize parts of the economy, or allow people to own their own property.

Maybe if our state-owned industries are partially privatized.

Maybe if we allow free and fair open elections, Communists will actually get elected and we can hold power that way.

Maybe if we allow for some free and private media, private news organizations will still kiss the central government’s huge over paternalistic ass for fear of being taken over by the regime and thrown into jail.”

None of these experiments work for communism because when they’re tried and people get a taste of freedom, they tend to like it.

Imagine being lost in a desert for weeks perhaps your plane crashes and you have to rely on only what you brought for that trip and then you’re finally recused and you start pouring water down your throats and perhaps try to drink and entire lake, at the same time you’re eating everything in sight including eating things that months ago people couldn’t pay you to eat, but you’re starving and you’ll eat anything. Are you going to go back to being stuck in the hot desert not knowing when you’ll be able to eat and drink anything ever again, or are you going to hang onto your freedom and live in civilization with the freedom to eat an drink whenever you want whatever you want?

Freedom can be addicting. Communism and authoritarianism in general is suffocating and torturing. When people escape communism and authoritarianism in general, they tend to fall in love with freedom and not wanting to live under an authoritarian system ever again. Communists have an ego problem and over trust in government and believe that people are essentially morons who can’t be trusted to put their pants on correctly each morning and therefor need Big Government to babysit them. And as we see now with only North Korea being the only pure communist state left in the world, people tend to like having the freedom to make their own decisions and tend not to want Big Government to do their thinking and decision-making for them.
Source: Trigger Happy: Communist Cringe Compilation

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The Atlantic: Olga Khazan- A Better Way To Argue About Politics

Source: The Atlantic
Source: The Atlantic: Olga Khazan- A Better Way To Argue About Politics

Before I get into what I believe is a better way to argue politics, I want to explain my issues with Olga Khazan's piece here, because she unintentionally lays out a big problem with American politics which is stereotypes.

According to Olga and she used Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders as her example of a Liberal, which would be like using Representative Ron Paul as an example of a Conservative, even though Senator Sanders is not a fan of either liberal democracy or individual rights, and instead believes in democratic collectivism ( social democracy, if you prefer ) which is very different. And Representative Paul disagrees with so-called Conservatives on a lot of issues especially having to do with national security, foreign policy, but policies that the Christian-Right pushes.

Which gets to my larger point being abut the ignorance about American politics and how the mainstream media including Olga Khazan, reinforces those those false stereotypes about not just what it means to be a Liberal or Conservative, but that Americans are either a Liberal or Conservative . As if you only have two choices in American politics, that there only two choices on the American political menu as far as how you define your own politics and political philosophy. Liberal or Conservative, like being on an airplane and only having a choice between the chicken or salad. As if there is nothing else that someone could possibly eat or order.

But in a political sense there is another other possible way to think when it comes to politics. You're either Liberal or Conservative according to the American mainstream media dictionary when it comes to American politics. Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right, as if nothing else exists. And like most things in life American politics especially in a country as large and diverse including politically diverse as we are, life is just not that simple. And to just put people in two political camps in America is at best lazy journalism and at worst just very ignorant as far as how Americans tend to look at politics.

If you go by the stereotypes about what it means to be a Liberal or Conservative, perhaps 3-5 voters are Conservatives. 1-5 voters are Liberals. If you go buy the classic definition of what it means to be a Liberal, that number jumps up to maybe 3-10 4-10, because Americans don't want big government to try to manage their lives for them and tell them what they can eat, or even say and spend ,most of our money for us. But we tend to believe in the real liberal values like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, right to privacy, equal rights, quality opportunity for all, a safety net for people who truly need it, a strong national defense to protect the country, effective and responsible law enforcement. Things that stereotypical Liberals don't believe in.

And if you polled what it truly means to be a Conservative someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights, fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, personal responsibility, there might me 3 or 4-10 American voters who share those values. But if you polled Americans based on what's called religious conservatism and Christian Nationalism in America and this belief that all Americans should live under the same moral values and there is only one way for Americans to be American and for people who don't share those values are Un-American, that number shrinks to what's known as the Donald Trump base. Which is about 20-25% of the electorate and maybe 30-35% of the Republican Party.

One of the great things about American politics and the American political spectrum and why it's great to debate politics in America is our political diversity. Just like America represents the whole world racially and ethnically, we represent the whole world ideologically as well. From Christian-Theocrats and Nazis on the Far-Right, to Communists on the Far-Left. To Conservatives and Liberals in the middle of those two fringes with Conservatives and Conservative-Libertarians representing the Center-Right and Liberals and Progressives the Center-Left.

Newsflash: not everyone in America is a Conservative or a Liberal. They are our two largest political factions if you go by the true meaning of Conservative as far as what Conservatives believe in a political sense and what the true meaning of Liberal is and what Liberals believe in a political sense. With Socialists both democratic and communist, representing the Far-Left in America and Nationalists representing the Far-Right.

On a more lighter note as far as a better way to argue American politics I would suggest a few things.

One- don't view your favorite partisan publications and media outlets word as gold. Leave open the possibility that those media outlets might have a political agenda and are simply positing negative stories to hurt the other side or post positive stories to help their side. And of course I'm thinking of MSNBC and Fox News. NBC News ( the parent of MSNBC ) is a real news operation and more factually base., but MSNBC is a partisan news operation representing the Far-Left in American politics. And Fox News is just Fox News FNC or network, a partisan political tabloid that basically serves as the communication operation for the Republican National Committee.

Two- stay away from partisan media outlets, or at the very least expand your media diet and look to intelligent commentators from the other side, as well as independent reporters who don't have any political agenda. Once American voters actually start receiving real information and facts when it cones to politics and government, they'll become intelligent voters because now they'll be thinking with these little annoying but very help things called facts. Instead of going off on political spin. Like the insomniac who thinks they can survive without sleep by just pouring coffee and Dr. Pepper down their throats and running a treadmill, two many Americans simply go off what they're favorite partisans tell them which leaves them without real facts and information.

Three- view people especially political junkies as just people who have strong political viewpoints. If you're debating someone on the Right, don't automatically assume that they're some racist xenophobic, sexist, corrupt,  materialistic, selfish, pig, who hates minorities, women, and gays. Especially if they're on the Center-Right and have a brain. And if you're debating someone on the Left, don't automatically view that person as some Che Guevara/Fidel Castro or even Bernie Sanders loving big government statist. Who hates America and views all Caucasians especially Anglo-Saxons and men and views all those people as racists, who want to eliminate all individual freedom and individualism in all forms. Again, especially if they're on the Center-Left and have a brain.

Four- debating an talking is great for the brain and a great verbal exercise, but if you watch sports on TV and even go to games you know that all of those events have timeouts, ( except for maybe soccer ) how about you save some of your breath and use your brain for something other than speaking and debating and use it as a a computer and take in information. You'll learn a few things not just about the person that you're debating, but you might also learn some things about the issues that you're debating. I'm not here to plug any network in particular but if you listen to some of the discussions and debates on CNN from their so-called experts, they actually listen to each other and let the other side speak.

American politics and debate will only get better and American politicians will only become more popular than your average junk dealer or used car salesman ( which is another way of saying junk dealer ) when the people that these politicians represent become better and smarter. When the voters become intelligent and informed and not just operating on 30 or 40% of the story and become informed and engaged voters who don't see their job as to eliminate the other party, even if that means supporting legislation that if there was no partisan angle to doing it they would've never supported before. American politicians only represent the people that voted for them and good politicians can only at best represent the entire community that they officially represent. The entire city, state, district, country, whatever it might be. A big problem in American politics and hyper-partisanship are American voters themselves.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Brian Domitrovic- Who Was JFK?

Source: The Rubin Report
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Brian Domitrovic- Who Was JFK?

When you're talking about people who are called Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) I believe John F. Kennedy has to at the top of the list. Or at least towards the top of the list. Former Republican presidential nominee businessman Wendell Willkie, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others today. Former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, ( one of my favorite Liberals ) is a JFK Democrat and would be on that list as well. People who believe in both personal freedom and economic freedom. Limited but good government that should be used to protect our individual rights and even be used to help people help themselves.

Not that then Vice President Richard Nixon wasn't a strong anticommunist in 1960, because he was but then Senator John Kennedy was the strongest anticommunist in that presidential election. The Liberals were the anticommunists, as well as FDR Progressives and of course Conservative Republicans. Like Senator Barry Goldwater, to use as an example. Liberals are still anticommunists and antiauthoritarian across the board today, but generally when you think of the Left today there's not much of a center on the Left anymore. The center-left seems to be dying in America and you talk about the Left in America today you're generally talking about Socialists. In some cases Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, but in a lot of cases you're talking about just pure Socialists and even Communists. Socialism including communism, is very popular with Millennial's today.

But back in the 1950s and even the early 1960s, Liberals were very prominent in America. People who believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans. Who believed in free speech and property rights for all Americans. People who believe in personal autonomy for all Americans. Who believed in a strong but limited national defense to be able to defend America from any possible threat, as well as defeat communism and other authoritarian government's around. And a safety net for people who truly need it to help low-income and low-skilled people in the short-term, while they're preparing themselves to not just go to work, but get themselves a good job and become self-sufficient. This is the liberalism that Jack Kennedy represented and had it not have been for his unfortunate assassination in 1963, this is the liberalism that he would've run on for reelection in 1964 and probably had gotten reelected.

Think about what would've happened had President Kennedy not have been assassinated in 1963. He gets reelected in 1964 and we don't enter the Vietnam War in 1965 and as a result the Democratic Party doesn't collapse in the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the socialist New-Left perhaps doesn't emerge as well. At least not to the extent that it became where they could actually get themselves elected to major offices and become a major part of the Democratic Party which nominates Socialist Senator George McGovern for President in 1972.

As far as the JFK tax cut, it was actually President Lyndon Johnson ( Progressive Democrat ) who gets that passed through Congress in 1964. That of course President Kennedy proposed in 1962. And it was also President Johnson who got the JFK 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress as well. And the tax cut wasn't a supply side tax cut. They lowered tax rates across the board which was the right thing to do, but he paid for those tax cuts by eliminating tax loopholes. Which is something that so-called Conservatives ( supply siders, really ) today don't seem to ever mention. They say JFK cut taxes for everyone without cutting spending which lead to all of this great economic growth of the 1960s and the tax cuts paid for themselves. Which is the argument that they used for the Ronald Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Which simply didn't happen. JFK's tax cuts were paid for upfront by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.

I'm a JFK Liberal Democrat personally and unfortunately one of the last of the Liberal Democrats in the Democratic Party. The classical liberal wing of the Democratic Party seems to be dying as the Socialists are taking over to the point that in 2020 the Democratic choice for President might be either Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren. But liberalism is how Democrats win national elections and how they can appeal to blue-collar voters., which is what Jack Kennedy was able to do. By pushing for both personal and economic freedom, equal rights, civil rights, a safety net for people who actually need it. Instead of saying that big government can take care of everyone for everyone and individualism and freedom is too risky. Which is what the Socialists in party seem to represent today. 

Monday, March 5, 2018

The Onion: U.S. Senator Tom Carper- 'My Vote is Not For Sale At These Prices'

Source: The Onion
Note: these views don't necessarily reflect the views of Senator Tom Carper, even if he personally wrote this piece for The Onion himself or had a staff writer write it for him. Who knows, perhaps a paid lobbyist wrote this piece for Senator Carper. Which unfortunately wouldn't be surprising for Congress.

"When I was first elected to represent the people of Delaware, I made a vow to hold myself to a higher standard. The voters had placed their trust in me, and I knew if I broke that sacred covenant, I’d never forgive myself. Which is why, 35 years later, when someone tries to sway my position on an issue by offering me a small favor or modest campaign contribution, I’m not afraid to put my foot down and clearly state that no, my vote is not for sale at a price that low."

Source: The Onion: U.S. Senator Tom Carper- 'My Vote Is Not For Sale At These Prices'

So I guess it's okay for members of Congress who are being bought, if they're getting their money's worth. I mean what decent politician in his or her right mind would allow himself or herself to be bought off for a few hundred buck per vote. I mean if you're going to be bought off by the oil and gas industry or by teacher unions, you might as well get your money's worth.

This is how Congress is perceived in America. Why 1-2 American voters bother to take 30-60 minutes away from their daily and iPhone and reality TV viewing to go down to their neighborhood school and bother to actually stand in line or just walk up to the nearest voting machine after they're checked in to bother to vote. Or why Congress on a good year has an approval rating about 20%, but generally make accident attorney's and traveling salesman look popular in comparison.

Because the word politician is seen as an insult. Not just as an insult but a four letter insult. American politicians are viewed by average Americans like professional athletes who go from team to team during their careers simply looking to earn the most money possible. And in the politician's case to get the most money for their campaigns and to win reelection as easily as possible. Because at the end of the day what are politicians actually in office to do?

Only two possible things. Either to get reelected or to win a higher office. Perhaps win a leadership position in Congress. If you guessed politicians serve in office to serve their constituents, well I won't burst out laughing at you and ask you what you're smoking or drinking, because you would actually be 1-4 right. They're there to serve the people who financially backed their campaigns. Who without they would've struggled to raise enough money to buy a neighborhood lemonade stand by themselves.
Source: The Onion: NRA Fights Legislation That Would Ban Gun Sales To Those Currently on Killing Sprees

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Washington Watch: BookTV Afterwords- Carlos Lozada Interviewing David Frum: Trumpocracy & The State of Western Democracy

Source: Washington Watch-
Source: Washington Watch: BookTV Afterwords- Carlos Losada Interviewing David Frum: Trumpocracy & The State of Western Democracy

Maybe Trumpocracy is another way of talking about the new highly rated Washington reality TV show known as The White House, with Donald Trump. I say highly rated and not highly successful, because it's not successful at least as far as far as how the American people think of it. Anytime 3-5 voters don't like the politician that is supposed to represent them whatever the office is, that politician is not doing well. 3-5 Americans don't like the job that President Trump is doing, don't like him personally, and don't trust him. He's in Richard Nixon territory as far as how unpopular he is with the American people. But his new show and perhaps Amateur Night at The White House, would be a better name for President Trump's latest reality TV show, is highly rated.

You can't just look at Donald Trump by only looking at one aspect of him. You have to look at the narcissistic selfish gigantic sized personality. You have to look at his governing style, which he doesn't seem to have at least from the outside looking in. You have to look at his policies. You have to look at his supporters which at this point are only little more than a third of the electorate, but were enough to at least get him the Republican nomination for President. And then you have to look to his appeasement of those voters. The salesmanship to be kind, the con game would be more accurate in how he appeals to blue-collar fundamentalist Christian voters especially in the Republican Party, but ins some cases in the upper Midwest the Democratic Party as well.

In 2016 we saw the John Birch Society/George Wallace/Ann Coulter/Pat Buchanan right-wing populist ethno-Tribalist-Nationalist presidential candidate, but with a personality, as well as great sense of humor and even likable at times in Donald Trump. And yes, Donald Trump is a very funny man ( even intentionally ) and even likable when he's in small spaces and groups. This is a political faction in America that has been around since World War I at least in America that views conspiracy theories as real news like Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordering the assassination of President John Kennedy. And real news as fake and establishment news. Who don't trust institutions especially non-partisan institutions like the CIA and FBI, simply because they can't be controlled by partisans. And operate independently even from the President.

I view Donald Trump as wannabe dictator who picked the last country in the world to try to become a dictator in the United States of America. Sort of like a village idiot who tries to rob a bank with just a leaky water gun at 12 noon on a Monday and wonders what went wrong and how come people were just laughing at him instead of giving him their money.

President Trump knows he can't shut down the private media because we have a guaranteed free press and his administration simply wouldn't allow for him to even try that. So he calls them fake news at least when they report negative facts about him. Which is most of the time. He says his entire intelligence community is wrong when they say that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election. He accuses people that he personally appointed as being disloyal and part of the establishment when they don't shut down the Russia investigation and even expand it when new facts and evidence come to light about the Trump Campaign's involvement with Russia during the 2016 election. Because he's smart enough to know he can't control these investigations and what Congress does by himself. So he instead attempts to make them look corrupt. He's a wannabe dictator in the wrong country and doesn't like accountability and limited power.

In some ways Donald Trump is the worst nightmare and horror movie coming to real life and part of that is because he's now the President of the United States. Literally the most powerful and most important country in the world, the greatest country in the world as far as how powerful and influential in the world. But part of why we're so strong, powerful, and great, is because of our checks and balances, our accountability. Which was designed in case someone like Donald Trump ever became President. The reason why we've been able to avoid nationalist populist authoritarians from coming to power in America and why countries like Russia, Poland, Venezuela, haven't, is because of our checks and balances. And is something that Donald Trump is learning the hard way.

Friday, March 2, 2018

Politics and Prose: Robert Reich- 'The Common Good'

Source: Politics and Prose
Source: Politics and Prose: Robert Reich- 'The Common Good'

In this long PBS style fundraiser marathon of a speech that Robert Reich gave in Washington about his book The Common Good, I got the sense that he was talking about what's called the social contract. This idea that Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists and some Progressives push that government is there to make sure everyone is taken care and has what they need to live well in society. And Reich is probably using the New Deal from the 1930s and the Great Society from the 1960s, as his idea of what the social contract or the common good is.

As a Liberal I'm all in favor of a public safety net for people who truly need it. And if we're going to continue to have a public safety net for people who are uneducated and under skilled, than that safety net should be used to empower people so they can get a good enough job to become economically self-sufficient and no longer need public assistance at all. Instead of just giving low-skilled workers and non-workers money that is produced by people who work hard for a living and don't qualify for public assistance.

I'm all if favor of requiring people to who are on Welfare to go to work and even take the first job that opens up for them that they're qualified for. As well as giving them child care assistance so they can go to work, if they have kids. As well as education assistance so they can go back to school and further and finish their education, so again they can get themselves a good job. That programs like Medicaid and Food Assistance, to use as examples, Public Housing would be another one, would be for low-income workers, instead of non-workers.

My idea of a safety net ( which I prefer over social contract or welfare state ) is a public social insurance system. There for people who can't survive even in the short-term without that financial assistance. But also there to help those people get on their feet economically. Similar to auto insurance, or property insurance. You don't use those insurances to pay your bills. You use them when your car is in an accident, or your house is on fire or gets flooded.

A safety net should be for people who lose their jobs, don't have a good education, can't afford health insurance, don't make enough money to feed themselves, can't afford housing. Not for people who simply don't want to work in America.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

John Birch Society: John F. McManus- Understanding Donald Trump

Source: Inside JBS-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

If there is one group that you think would stick with a President like Donald Trump, it would be the John Birch Society. They’ve been talking about what he ran on for President and what he’s been trying to do as President like immigration and the so-called Cultural War, since the 1940s. Pushing this bogus ( to be overly generous ) idea that we’re losing America and America no longer looks like America because of non-European especially non-British immigration in America since the 1960s. Something that both Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter, have been talking about for a very long time. Maybe even further back than that. Maybe Newsmax, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, will be the next people who abandoned President Trump. Something to look at.

To sort of speak up for President Trump and the next time I’ll do that might be the day I win the state lottery in five different states on the same day, but to sort of defend the President I would say the man is simply out of his element and unqualified to be President. Like an auto mechanic trying to perform brain surgery, it just doesn’t look right. The man is use to no limits where he can even push the limits of the law with his business ( perhaps even break the law ) with no one holding him accountable.

The President of The United States, is the last position where you want on the job training to be performed. Trying to perform brain surgery by yourself might be the second to last place where you want on the job training performed. Donald Trump finds himself in a place now where he can’t do whatever he wants with no consequences. Where even people around him if they don’t like what he’s doing or saying, positions he’s taking, they’ll make that clear to him, or at the very least make it clear to the public and leak what they don’t like about what the President is doing. Instead of acting like they’re participating in a bootlicking, or ass kissing contest.

Don’t know the man personally ( certainly not my loss ) but I imagine Donald Trump saw himself in New York as essentially a dictator. Who could literally do whatever he wants and say whatever he wants without any consequences. And his 2016 presidential campaign sort of reenforced that where he said the most insulting, hateful, and even disgusting things and never paid a price for any of that. Where the Access Hollywood tape from 2005 comes out where he’s caught on tape about how he can physically violate women and get away with it. If anything his popularity only went up after that.

America is the last country in the world where you can be a dictator. Where you can have dictatorial authoritarian leanings as a chief executive and head of government and believe you can get away with anything. Our checks and balances and form of government simply don’t allow for that.

And even with the President’s own National Security Adviser resigning or being fired last year, with own Attorney General recusing himself from the Russia investigation because he was part of a presidential campaign that had Russian allies and even worked with Russians to help defeat Hillary Clinton, where his own Deputy Attorney General appoints a special prosecutor to investigate not just the Trump Campaign, but Donald Trump himself , where a Congress that is controlled by his own party is looking into the Russia affect on the 2016 presidential election, where his own National Security Council and intelligence community acknowledged early on that Russia not only interfered in our presidential election, but did it successfully even though President trump denies that. At some point very early on a light would’ve gone on inside the head of an intelligent reality ( not reality TV ) based man that he can’t do whatever he wants.

That The White House Office of Legal Counsel and U.S. Justice Department, are not his personal law firms, that the FBI is not his personal private detective and security agency, that the U.S. Congress doesn’t personally work for him and can’t be fired by him. But that is not the mindset and world that Donald Trump operates in. He sees himself as King and anyone who disagrees with him is not only disloyal to him, but America as well and should lose their job if not be in jail as well. As much as Donald Trump might want to be the Vladimir Putin dictator of the West, our form of government and system simply prevents that from happening.
Source: Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Robert Costa: Understanding Donald Trump

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

The Atlantic: McKay Coppins- Is Trumpism The New Conservatism?

Source: The Atlantic-
Source: The Atlantic: McKay Coppins- Is Trumpism The New Conservatism?

To answer McKay Coppins question: no, Trumpism is not the new conservatism. And why do I say that? Well, because it's true and if you want more of an explanation than that, I don't blame you.

What is Trumpism? Trumpism by itself is not a political ideology. It's really whatever reality TV addict Donald Trump says and makes it at any given time. The man does have nationalist-authoritarian leanings as President and in that sense is a strong cultural warrior. At least officially and when he's talking to his supporters. But put him back in the real world where little things like facts matter, and arresting and locking up your political opponents, comes off as extreme even from your own fellow Republicans, where Latinos and Muslims, aren't seen as invaders, women aren't seen as property, ( and I'm thinking of Judge Roy Moore ) get Trump away from his political and cultural cult and in touch with real thinking people where again facts and reality matter and the man can actually come off as reasonable and even intelligent.

Return Donald Trump back down to Planet Earth and America where most Americans live, Big Don comes off as more reasonable. He can even come as a an intelligent thinking human being who doesn't have a Breitbart/John Birch Society/Alex Jones worldview that is only shared by people who left Planet Earth for a better life on another planet that hasn't been discovered yet. Talk about space cases, some Trump voters look like poster children for space cases.

On the other hand, Donald Trump's supporters simply see things that aren't there and that no intelligent person could possibly view as being reality. And yet they believe and say those things anyway. Like Barack Obama being an African-Muslim Socialist from Kenya, who is an illegal alien. And unfortunately that is just one example of how Trump voters are so far out of space from reality, it's as if Charlie Manson's Manson Family cult came back to life and they were part of that and managed to get some of the extra LSD that was left behind after the Manson Family soldiers were all arrested. Some Trump voters at least come off ass hardcore cult members, who've mentally left Planet Earth and have invested so much in there dear leader that everything the man says they treat as gold no matter what the man says.

Trumpism itself is not much more than a one-,man reality show who says whatever comes to his mind and at any given second. A lot of what he says is what the last person he spoke to told him to say or what Far-Right media like Breitbart and Fox News, is telling him to say. But nationalism is a political and cultural tribalist philosophy that puts one group of citizens in any given country, against everyone else. And people who disagree with them must be traitors. People who criticize the dear leader is a criminal who should be locked up. The fringe part of Donald Trump's base that are in the South and rural America for the most part, are Nationalist-Tribalist's who view Democrats as Un-American and as traitors. View the Democratic Party as a criminal organization that should be put out of business. Women as second-class citizens, non-European-Americans as Un-American and as traitors. The Alt-Right in America.

What I just laid out is not conservatism. Duh! Where in any part of The Conscience of a Conservative ( written by Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater ) the unofficial if not official handbook as well as playbook, the definition of what conservatism is and what it means to be a Conservative, do you see any of these cultural war tribalist issues and this McCarthyite tactic of putting one group of Americans against the people they would call the real Americans as if not every American citizen is not a real American, against everyone else in the country. People who simply disagree with the McCarthyite's or today the Trumpian's. Conservatism is about limited government and conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. Not about putting one group of Americans against everyone else.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Dave Rubin makes one mistake about socialism up front which is common for people on the Right especially, but sometimes on the Left as well, which is to lump all Socialists into one political box. As if all Democrats fit into one political box, or all Republicans fit into one political box, or even all Libertarians fit into one political box. There are Socialists and then there are Socialists. The Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, the democratic wing of socialism and then there are Communists, which make up the authoritarian wing of socialism.

Where Dave Rubin is right is that all Socialists have one thing in common. Which is what they view as the greater good and collective, is more important than the individual. That individual freedom is somehow bad and perhaps even racist, if it means that there are people who do very well economically and live well in society, when there are poor people who's struggle just to survive. Perhaps skip meals so their kids can at least have something to eat that day. That is what Socialists believe that what you should do instead is to see that all the recourses in the country are divided up equally so no one is rich and no one is poor. Even if that means putting strict limits on individual economic freedom and even individual personal freedom.

The title of Dave Rubin's video is "Socialism Isn't Cool" and yet he doesn't mention why socialism is not cool, but instead just mentions the negative aspects of socialism and socialist countries like Venezuela. Tell that to the millions if not tens of millions of Millennial's who voted for Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries for President and the perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for Jill Stein for President during the 2016 general election. To them, socialism is the new awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist to them, must be a racist or a bigot or someone working to protect the man and keep women and minorities down. To them socialism is like totally awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist is not awesome.

My issues with socialism gets to what Dave Rubin laid out which is the collectivist nature of it. That it's somehow unfair and selfish for individuals to get a good education and then take those skills to the private market and imply them and be rewarded handsomely for them. But what they may never understand is that once you discourage wealth, opportunity, success, and individualism, you get a hell of a lot less of it and leave yourself less resources to help people who for whatever reasons aren't doing well in society. And you also leave yourself with a lot less innovation and creativity, because people are left to wonder why they should do well in school and at work, when big government is just going to take most of their resources from then to subsidize people who aren't doing well.

You want a free developed society with as many people as possible doing well in life, then you have to subsidize and promote the things that make freedom and success possible. Which is education, opportunity, equality under law, equal rights, success, and yes wealth. Which is what you don't get in a socialist society whether it's a communist society like Cuba and now Venezuela which essentially functions as a one-party unitarian communist state, or a social democratic society like Britain where even when the Conservatives are in charge individualism and individual freedom, is discouraged and even punished for the sake of the collective. 

Monday, February 26, 2018

The Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews Interviewing Dr. Michael Shermer- Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things

Source: The Thinking Atheist-
Source: The Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews Interviewing Dr. Michael Shermer- Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things

Why smart people believe stupid things? Perhaps a better question would be do these smart people actually believe these stupid things, or are they ( pardon my French ) bullshit artists? People aren't necessarily good or bad because they're smart or even stupid. There not necessarily honest or dishonest because they're smart or stupid. They're Saints who are smart ( not necessarily in New Orleans ) and there Devils who are smart. ( Especially in New Jersey ) There are smart people who are honest like the late Dr. Martin L. King and there are smart people who are bullshit artists. Take cult leader and serial murderer Charles Manson.

There morons who are honest and where you know exactly what they think or don't think all the time. Seem to have this hellbent desire and lifelong quest to broadcast to the world how stupid they are. Donald Trump, might be a good example of that at least when it comes to government and public policy and his lack of knowledge of those issues. And there morons who are also dishonest which really makes them dangerous. Because they not only know very little if anything that is important at least., but they lie about what they actually think about those issues that they've somehow managed to get themselves involved in. Perhaps they have friends who feel sorry for them and decided to bring into their fields. Again, Donald Trump would be an excellent example of this. At least when it comes to government and public policy.

President Trump not only has a horrible habit of saying things that aren't true, but when he is clearly contradicted by people who even work for him, then he tries to deny and hide that he previously held stupid positions and made stupid statements before. Even when it's obvious that he did. And not to pick on our dear President who I don't view as a moron generally. But when it comes to public policy and government, it's hard to name a time in the history of the world, at least in America where you had a President or public official who knew so little about what they actually spoke about and positions that they took and then lied so much about what they actually thought.

When you see smart people say stupid things, here's a suggestion. Question whether they actually believe what they're saying. Especially if they're in politics either as a politician or as a candidate. Also look at the audience that they're speaking to and at risk of being insulting look at the intelligence level of the people the politician or wannabe politician is speaking to. I don't mean give everyone in the audience IQ tests. ( Unless you have way too much free time on your hands ) But look at what they believe and what they think, political and social positions that they've made in the past and take now.

Because the politician might believe the people they're speaking to are morons and are dumb enough to believe him or her when they agree with the groups they're speaking to. Which is how I look at Donald Trump. Not as someone who is a moron in general, but as someone who views his base as morons and as people who'll believe whatever the hell he tells them. And who takes their side simply because he believes he needs their political support. 

Saturday, February 24, 2018

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

Source: The Film Archives-
Source: The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

I like and respect Camille Paglia a lot, at least when I'm quick enough to understand what she's saying, or at the very least catch every word that she says. She talks the way kitty cats run and Nascar cars race. You can write a book with her mouth in a few minutes. But when I am able to follow along she makes a lot of sense. Her politics at least up to ten years ago would put on the liberal-libertarian or classical liberal wing of the American political spectrum. ( The real Liberals )

She calls herself a feminist but I would put her on the classical side of that as well. That women shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, but that women shouldn't be rewarded based on their gender. Unlike a lot of these so-called radical feminists today on the New-Left ( or Far-Left ) who think America should just be made up of women and gay men and that masculinity ( unless it comes from women ) is somehow a bad thing. That straight men at least Caucasian straight men, are inherently bad people and that straight men are ruining America.

Camille's politics when it comes to liberalism and feminism, seems to be about choice. That women should be able to make their own choices in life and be able to think for themselves. That if they want to work, than that should be their choice. But if they decide to stay home and raise their kids which is also a job and a paying job at that, then that is what should be able to do. That women should be able to think for themselves and not be feel the need to look down at straight men and see them as evil. But if they want to believe that straight men are bad, then that would be their choice as a radical feminist.

That women shouldn't be forced to be big government Socialists, who believe big centralized government has all the answers in life. Or they can be Conservative-Libertarians who don't believe big government has many if any answers at all to solving problems in society. But that they should be able to think for themselves without radical feminists viewing them as sellouts to the feminist cause or a traitors who are in the laps and beds of straight men.

If there was a free market for women, it would've been created by the Camille Paglia liberal wing of feminism. That there should be choice across the board and not just when it comes to abortion and sexuality but in life in general. When and if they work, sexuality in general, how they should think, what their politics should be. Instead of being told by radical feminists and the Socialist-Left or the Christian-Right on what it means to be a real woman in America and how all women should be forced to live.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Politics & Prose: John Leland- 'Happiness Is A Choice You Make'

Source: Politics & Prose-
Source: Politics & Prose: John Leland- 'Happiness Is A Choice You Make'

I believe in the cliche life is a highway and then add Tom Cochrane's line, I want to ride it all night long. On the highway of life ( to use a another cliche ) you make a lot of turns, stops, you accelerate, you stop for gas and just to get a bite to eat and get some rest.

Imagine driving from Washington to Los Angeles in a cross-country trip. Ordinary if you don't run into bad weather, car trouble, have any major accidents, decide to go for a joy ride after getting loaded one night on one of your stops in St. Louis let's say, and you're a good driver, this cross-country trip should take you about 7-10 days. Well, imagine your life being a a cross-country trip or a trip around the world but it takes you about 80 years ( give or take ) instead and not because of car trouble or any of the other factors that I just mentioned.

That is what life is which is a very long journey if you live a normal life in years. And on that journey you're going to have a lot of ups and downs. Richard Nixon once said that he wanted to die with at least one more victory than defeat. Well, hopefully life for you will be a lot better than that and the best thing about this is that you have complete control over your own life once you move out from your parents and start driving on your own highway of life with the ability and freedom to make your own decisions. But even before you move out from your parents as a young adult you still have a lot of freedom to make your own highway and ability to decide what that journey will be for you.

Do you finish high school, to use as an example. Do you do well in high school which allows for you do be able to go to college. If you go to college, do you do well in college. Do you stay out of trouble as a youth or get into trouble on a regular basis. These are all choices that we make as children, adolescents, young adults, full adults, and moving forward. It's up to us to make either good decisions or bad decisions with our own lives and then we have to live with the consequences of our own decisions for good and bad, or for in-between.

In a free society like a liberal democracy like America, we all have choices that we make in life. The question is what kind of choices do we make. If you have not just a habit of making good choices like you just happen to be very lucky and perhaps you should take that luck to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, but you tend to make good choices and decisions because you've decided to based on good information and facts instead of flipping a coin, drawing straws, you're going to be happy in life. At least compared with a screwup who acts on impulse, or doesn't care about anyone other than them self, perhaps lost their brain somewhere and never went back to look for it.

To achieve happiness in life you have to figure out what makes you happy. What you're good at and what you want out of life. And then make the right decisions to accomplish those things. Instead of sitting on your ass and expecting happiness to pick you up off your couch or getting lucky. The ultimate investment in life is your own life. The more you put into it, the more you'll get back and the happier you'll be. You only get out if your investments what you put in them.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Richard Nixon Foundation: Pat Buchanan- 1968: The Year The Silent Majority Was Born

Source: Richard Nixon Foundation-
Source: Richard Nixon Foundation: Pat Buchanan- 1968: The Year The Silent Majority Was Born

I believe you have to understand the 1960s and 1967-68 especially to understand the great political comeback of Richard Nixon and the rebirth of the Republican Party. Once you know what this time was and what it was about and how it benefited Richard Nixon you'll also understand how brilliant of a politician and political strategist that Nixon really was. Nixon is in the same class as Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, when it comes to great politicians in American history. Perhaps smarter than all of then including FDR and Bill Clinton.

Where I agree with Pat Buchanan is that in 1967-68 America did feel like it was falling apart. The whole country seemed like it was pissed off. Riots and protests all across the country. Dr. King's nonviolent civil rights movement seemed to be going out of style even within the African-American community with the rise of the militant socialist Black Panthers. Millions of Baby Boomers of all races and ethnicities coming of age in the 1960s and seeing an America they didn't want and stood up to demand change across the country. People who tended to agree with Dr. King on the issues that his movement was addressing, but were primarily campaigning against the Vietnam War and what they saw was a self and racist American capitalist economic system.

By the time we get to 1968 the late 1950s is only ten years before 68 and yet America was and looked completely different as a country and not just because of color TV, but the music was not recognizable from the 1950s, the movies and the language and culture in the movies was completely different. Protesting and especially rioting in the streets and doing it in big cities like Detroit, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, just wasn't done in 1957 or at any point in the 1950s for the very most part. But you also didn't have a huge generation of angry Americans ( the Baby Boom Generation ) who were angry and wanted a different country and different system.

And during this whole period in the 1960s you had one political party in charge in America and in most of the country. Similar to what we have today but with large majorities in Congress. A Senate with 64 Democrats in 67-68, 243 or Democrats in the House, a Progressive Democrat as President in Lyndon Johnson. But with the angry Baby Boomers of all racial, ethnic, economic, and cultural backgrounds and the angry African-American community for good reasons, you also had the parents and grandparents of the Baby Boomers who were also angry, but they weren't angry at America. Just the leadership and party in power, as well as the new Counter Culture that seemed to be taking over America.

What we would call Reagan Democrats in the 1980s and today, were Nixon Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s. Southern and Midwestern Democrats who voted Democratic most of their lives until 1966, 67, and 68 came around when they were looking for different political leadership. Back in 1968 the Republican Party even with their big gains during the 1966 Congressional midterms when they won 45 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate, was still primarily a Northeastern party, with some support in the Midwest and conservative-libertarian West.

And to get to why Richard Nixon was such a brilliant not just politician but political strategist which is just as important. Nixon understood that for the Republican Party to come back they were going to have to make gains in the Democratic Dixie South, while holding their ground in the Northeast, Midwest, and Mountain West. They were going to have to win over right-wing Southern Dixiecrats who opposed the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

 It started in 1966 with Congressional Republicans winning back over 40 seats in the House and a lot of them in the South and winning back 4 seats in the Senate allowing Congressional Republicans along with Dixiecrat Democrats, to block partisan progressive legislation that was proposed by President Johnson and the Congressional Democratic Leadership. And in 1968 thanks to the Vietnam War and the socialist New-Left that emerged in the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party was a huge house that was hugely divided and their grand political coalition that kept them in power since the Hoover Administration in the late 1920s when they won Congress back finally broke.

With Richard Nixon again being the great politician and political strategist that he was being there to take advantage of that. Richard Nixon is a big reason why the Republican Party is southern and rural based in America. He's also a reason why Republicans struggle to win in big cities and big metro areas, because they're base is so dependent on right-wing Fat-Right in many cases Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestant aging men. But pre-1966 the Republican Party simply wasn't big enough to compete nationally with the Democrats and Richard Nixon changed that.