Fora-TV: Brian Doherty: 1960s Counterculture and Libertarianism

Source:The New Democrat

“1960s Counterculture and Libertarianism”, seems like a strange title to me. And you might say that, “well its the title of your piece, so why did you call it that?” That would be partly true, but the title of this piece has to do with the title of Brian Doherty 2007 book about 1960s counter-culture and libertarianism. But why is that a strange title to me? I’ll tell you anyway, because libertarianism wasn’t even a term back then. They came around in the early 1970s with the creation of the Libertarian Party. Which isn’t much bigger today then it was back in 1972 or so. And I’m not saying there weren’t Libertarians back in the 1960s, because of course there were. Milton Friedman comes to mind and even Ayn Rand, but they were called other things.

People who believed in individual liberty back then were called Liberals and Conservatives. But they had different versions of what individual liberty meant to them. And I’m not talking about the Religious-Right or the New Left. But true Liberals and Conservatives not trying to change the definitions of those terms, but who truly believed in liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives who believes in conserving liberty and conserving the state and not expanding it. And Liberals who believed in expanding liberty for people who don’t have it and protecting liberty for people who don’t have it yet.

And that is where Libertarians come in and that is what gave them their opening. Because Libertarians didn’t want to conserve the state, or expand the state. But they want to expand liberty and they believe the way you that is by shrinking the state and getting government almost completely out of people’s lives. And just leaving government to protect our freedom from predators who would take it away. And by doing this both economic and personal liberty would be expanded to people who don’t have it yet. Which is much different from the Conservative who wants to conserve freedom and decentralize government, but not shrink it. And the Liberal who wants to use government to expand liberty both personal and economic.

One thing that I believe Libertarians can at least respect if not like about the 1960s counter-culture movement. Not the New Left crowd that was not just anti-war and use of force from government and wanting to tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and economic system. And replace it with a socialist collectivist model. But the anti-establishment movement that believed people should be free to live their own lives and even live differently from their parents and grandparents. Which is really individual liberty is about, right. The liberty for the individual to live their life the way they see fit, just as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

FORA-TV: P.J. O'Rourke, Who's Leading The Tea Party?

Source:The New Democrat  

Asking the question “who’s leading the Tea Party”? Is like asking someone, “how much dry water do you drink?” Or, “how often do you go swimming in an empty pool?” There are two answers to these three questions and they should be very obvious to even someone who lost their brain and didn’t bother replacing it. Never and no one. The Tea Party is not a party or a group, so they don’t have one leader or one group leading people to a better future of what have you. They are a collection of groups and different people who all make up this right-wing populist movement.

The Tea Party ranges from intelligent sane and rational conservative libertarian folks like Rand Paul and perhaps P.J. O’Rourke considers himself part of this group. To people who look and act like the only reason they aren’t currently institutionalized, is because there are already too many people like them who are institutionalized. And there just not enough beds and mental hospitals to go around for them. Or they were released because of budget cuts. The Michelle Bachmann’s and perhaps Ted Cruz’s of the world. The jury is still out on Senator Cruz’s sanity. Is he a complete partisan demagogue asshole. Or he is half a pack short of a six-pack of beer mentally.

Similar to the libertarian movement or the, yes socialist movement that is still around, just watch MSNBC talk and read The Nation or The New Republic now, there isn’t any one central authority that brings these parties together. Because they aren’t part of a larger party and in many cases like with the Socialists in America, spread out into different parties including the Democratic Party. So they don’t have anyone who is leading them.

Fora TV: PJ O'Rourke: Conservatives & Fiscal Responsibility

Source:Real Life Journal

What is fiscal responsibility, well to me that means spending what you have and can afford and nothing else. You don't have to be a Conservative to believe in that, just have common sense. Just like you don't have to be an American to like apple pie, but if you are an American you probably have more access to apple pie than lets say if you're a Chinese living in, I don't know lets say China just to use as an example. But you would think Conservatives would believe in fiscal responsibility, because how often they preach about responsibility. But of course New Gingrich has preached about family values in the past, haven't heard one of his sermons lately, no idea why. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact he had an affair with one of his staffers when he was Speaker of the House. 

Well the right-wing will say that President Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern. But Bill Clinton doesn't preach about family values, kinda the way Fidel Castro doesn't preach about the need for democracy in Russia. His consistency would be severely lacking there for obvious reasons which gets me to the point about the current Republican Party, the Party of Reagan. Low taxes, economic liberty, individual responsibility, they use to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Until they woke up and realized they had a Republican President and Congress back in 2003.

Then the Republican Party decided who needs fiscal responsibility, Congress has the authority to borrow at will. "If its legal, then it must be the right thing to do". Kinda like someone using the logic "everyone else is doing it, (fill in the blank) it must be all right". Well if all these people (not everyone literally, I hope) stuck knives up their noses until they were massively bleeding, would you do that to. Sometimes you have to use your own judgement and not play follow the leader like a six-year old. 

By the way the Republican Party woke up again in 2009 and noticed that there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress with a 10T$ federal debt and a 1T$ deficit and decided, "oh boy (or something to that effect well they are republicans, perhaps they did say oh boy) now we'll be the party of fiscal responsibility and blame Democrats for the problems we created! Thats our ticket back to power"! Or at least some power and it worked. The GOP won back the House of Representatives in 2010. In case you've been in a coma for a year, or vacationing in a cave in Afghanistan, if you were doing those things, I hope you have some pictures or brought back some kabob. Or even survived the experience, I heard there's a war going on over there or something. 

I'm not saying the Democratic Party is innocent here, even though I'm a Democrat we have what's called the Progressive Caucus made up of a bunch of 21st Century Socialists and want to move America to Sweden. Well actually design our Federal Government around the Swedish Government and double the size of our Federal Government. And if you think you pay too much in taxes right now, move to Sweden because your taxes would be lower there if the Progressive Caucus/Party ever came to power in America. 

What was great about America back in the day lets says 1980s and 90s, is you had a real Conservative Republican Party in the classical sense and a real Liberal Democratic Party again in the classical sense. And of course you had your whack jobs, that would escape from the mental institution or get released by a drunk doctor and run and get elected to Congress. But those people weren't in charge, the adults in both parties were. Today the whack jobs in both parties have enough power, that if you don't do exactly what they want.

You may lose your job and face a primary challenge which is why almost nothing gets done anymore because the adults in both parties don't have enough power to do what they want to do. And are afraid to work with the other side and if you're a believer in limited government like myself thats not always a bad thing. The least the Federal Government does, the more power the people have.

FORA-TV: Political Satirist Will Durst Takes on Mitt Romney

Source:The Daily Journal

The best way to describe Mitt Romney the politician is to use his own gaffes, I mean words his own thoughts. He said he’s not a politician, which might be technically true in the sense that he currently doesn’t hold public office. But why is that, because he has a very hard time getting elected to anything, except in 2002 when he was elected Governor of Massachusetts. But that’s not the whole story, he ran for President in 2007-08 in wide-open GOP field and finished third. Despite having the best resources and perhaps organization. And loses a Senate election to a vulnerable Ted Kennedy in 1994.

Mitt, decides not to run for Senate against John Kerry in 1996, against another vulnerable Senator in John Kerry and decides to take a few years off from politics instead . But the man has been thinking about running for public office at least since 1992. He just hasn’t found a way to get elected except for 2002 as Governor of Massachusetts. The reason why he’s not a career politician, is because he keeps losing or can’t find an election he can win. Not because he’s only interested in being a successful businessman. He’s been thinking about being President of the United States since 2004 and started running in 2006. Its taken him six years just to win he Republican nomination.

It’s not just Mitt Romney’s gaffe that he’s not a career politician. That takes up a whole paragraph. Then there’s the one where he says he doesn’t care about the poor. Well pardon the term no shit Sherlock! Also in he news fire can burn human flesh and people can drown underwater. And concrete is hard etc, no real news made here. Here’s a good one, he’s unemployed, actually he gets paid to run for president with all he money he raised running for President. He was fired from that back in 2008 when the GOP decided not to hire him to be their presidential nominee. He did managed to get another job running for president in 2009-10, in about three months, he’ll probably be fired again.

And then of course there all the flip-flops, like not being in favor of his own healthcare law that he singed into law in Massachusetts. He figured out that’s not going to fly and has decided he’s now in favor of Romney/ObamaCare. The best way to describe Mitt Romney without using his own words, imagine a slick used car salesmen. Who has the attitude, “I need to tell my customers what they need to hear for them to buy a car from me and where I’m wrong, I’ll try to fix this in the future.” Like saying a car that’s supposed to have four doors, but it only has three will keep you warm in the winter in Wisconsin with only three doors. Thats sums up Mitt’s flip-flops. “What do I have to say to this crowd to get their support and how do I change that around to get the support of the next crowd that I’m speaking to.” He’s a slick used car salesmen which unfortunately is a great way to describe a lot of American politicians.

FORA-TV: Daniel Lowenstein- 'Five Reasons to Keep the Electoral College'

Source:FORA-TV- Professor Daniel Lowenstein: on the Electoral College.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"UCLA Law Professor Daniel Lowenstein offers five arguments to maintain the Electoral College as the method for choosing the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.

However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.

Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new - The Commonwealth Club of California

Daniel Lowenstein teaches Election Law, Statutory Interpretation & Legislative Process, Political Theory, and Law & Literature. A leading expert on election law, he has represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation regarding reapportionment and the constitutionality of term limits. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and regularly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles' Antigone, Ibsen's Rosmerholm, and Wouk's The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

Professor Lowenstein worked as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance for two and one-half years. While working for California's Secretary of State, Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1971, he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Professor Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission. He has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."

From FORA-TV

Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in Small Sates are redneck and hillbilly's who don't matter and that their votes don't count, from ignoring them. If you're in a tight presidential race and it's going to come down to a few of states swing States like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana matter and that forces you to campaign there. 

And those voters get to see who'll be the next President of the United States as well who are also taxpayers. Instead of snobby Democrats just campaigning in the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida, a few big States in the Midwest and California. And just speaking to the wine and cheese yuppy crowds. Now they have to campaign in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado. 

Or snobby Republicans just campaigning in the Bible Belt Bible toting crowds and cherry pick a few States in the Midwest. In order to get elected President of the United States. Now they have to see if they can pick off Pennsylvania or Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's why we have the Electoral College, to prevent snobby presidential candidates from just targeting 50% of the voting public. Plus one vote in order to get elected President of the United States. 

We don't live in a majoritarian democracy, where 50% plus one is all you need to get into power as far as being President. Or a parliamentary democracy where we let our members of Congress make these decisions for us. We live in a republic in a form of a liberal democracy and being President is harder to achieve. Is our Electoral College perfect, of course not, but I sure as hell would take over anything that the rest of the world has. But we could definitely improve it. 

And if that probably takes a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish that, then I would be open to that. I have a problem with presidential candidates winning the popular vote in at least one case by a million votes with Vice President Al Gore back in 2000 and not winning the presidency. Even though a million more voters preferred that Al Gore be President of the United States, instead of GOV. George W. Bush. I'm not saying that as a Democrat, I really have a problem with that and see that as small d and l anti-liberal democratic. 

But not to the point where I'm willing to throw out the Electoral College. And replace it with a popular vote or move to a parliamentary social democracy like you see in Europe. I would like to see a political system that keeps the Electoral College, but amends it to be President of the United States, you have to win the Electoral College as well as popular vote. If there's a split decision, we would have a runoff a week later between the top two presidential candidates. Which would be decided by Popular Vote. 

I would like to see other changes to our presidential electoral System as well. If you only win lets says 40% of one State but finish first with multiple candidates, you shouldn't be awarded with all the electoral votes. But instead they would be divided up for everyone. Based on what percentage of the vote they get. 

If you win 60% of a state or more, then you can keep all of the Electoral Votes. That would be a better electoral system that would be more democratic. But not scrap the Electoral College because some people believe others have too much say based on where they live and don't like their culture and lifestyles.