Thursday, August 7, 2014

Charlie Rose Show: Christopher Hitchens On Bill Clinton (1999)


Source:Charlie Rose Show- British political columnist Christopher Hitchens, talking to Charlie Rose in 1999.
"A conversation with journalist Christopher Hitchens about his book "No One Left to Lie To", which investigates the Clinton presidency and his criticisms of Clinton's political compromises and personal scandals." 

From the Charlie Rose Show

This just in: Christopher Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. Now we return you to your Insomniac Nightly Movie The Attack of the Killer Popcorn. (Ha, ha)

This is no secret and as Chris Hitchens said early on in this interview that he strongly dislikes Bill Clinton. He is also an admitted Democratic Socialist back before Senator Bernie Sanders made that term somewhat cool in America. And represents the far-left of the Democratic Party whether he is officially a member of that party or not. And is way to the left of American Liberals and Americans in general. As Hitchens said himself in this interview.

Bill Clinton represents the center-left of the Democratic Party and for a long time led that wing of the party that brought the party back to power at the national level in the early 1990s. The New Democrat progressive wing of the party, the wing of the party that I come from as well. The wing of the party that made the party mainstream again on fiscal and economic policy as well. 

Along with crime, social insurance, national security, trade and you can go down the line. Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party if not hate New Democrats come damn close to that for taking the leadership of the party away from them.

Not saying these are the only reasons that Chris Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. But I'm also not saying these are not the main reasons either. What I'm saying is that you have to take that in account when you hear charges that Hitch and his allies make about Clinton and other New Democrats. That they call corporatists and sell outs and un-compassionate towards the poor and everything else. 

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

HSN: The List With Colleen Lopez

Source:HSN- Colleen Lopez with a friend.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Colleen takes the guesswork out of shopping for fashion and jewelry. Watch HSN every Thursday at 9pm ET & 6pm PT to see what you’ll add to your list!

Prices shown on the previously recorded video may not represent the current price. View hsn.com to view the current selling price.” 

Source:HSN- The List With Colleen Lopez.

From HSN 

At Colleen Lopez’s best, not saying she’s as attractive as Raquel Welch. But when she where’s here hair a certain way she reminds me of Raquel Welch. As a beautiful, adorable sexy woman who also has more than just great looks.

The lets say short-haired, but not butch tomboy dykish lesbian look, but where the hair goes down to the woman’s shoulders or so, when Colleen wears her hair like that, she’s beautiful and very cute, but in a sweet grownup sexy way. Not like a little baby-faced cutie little girl way, who several HSN hosts look like right now.

In some ways Colleen reminds me of the gorgeous Deidre Hall on Days of Our Lives. But not as pretty or as cute as Deidre, but with similar qualities. Tall, curvy, great body, beautiful and very cute. I just like Deidre more, but Colleen is a very attractive woman.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

CNN: Political Ticker- Jeremy Diamond & Eric Weisbrod: Congress Defined: Useless, Worthless, A Joke


Source:CNN

I'm not an expert on this, but when your profession or institution is ranked somewhere down where lawyers, used car salesman and conman are ranked when it comes to your popularity, commonsense tells you that it is time to reevaluate the job that you are doing and perhaps your profession. Congress right now and that includes both the House and Senate (for all you Progressives out there) has an approval rating somewhere around ten-percent. And since I'm in a generous mood I gave them the ten. Like to meet that ten-percent and see if any of them are not living in mental institutions or perhaps addicted to some type of drug.

The United States Congress makes the United Nations look effective. That is real hard to do because the United Nations a lot of times looks like nothing more than a debating society if that and not even a real good one. Where not much more than pre-rehearsed talking points are exchanged. With not a lot of individual creating thinking going on. Especially from people who are supposed to be diplomats and lawyers. Well that is Congress and both chambers. Instead of trying to pass legislation and working with each other to get something that the President can actually sign that would address the problem passed. They blame the other side for why nothing has been done.

Congress is so pathetic (again being generous) that they can't even pass the bills that they are required to by law and under the Constitution. The Federal budget is supposed to be passed by April. The Democratic Senate claims that they don't have to pass a budget. And they say something to the effect "you can't make us anyway!". One of their twelve-year old speechwriters probably gave them that Pulitizer caliber writing on that one. Congress is supposed to pass what thirteen appropriations bills by what September. They haven't passed one yet and at least the Republican House has passed a few.

Congress doesn't pass budgets and appropriations bills anymore because if they did that then Representatives and Senators might have time to actually read the bills. And then decide they can't vote for that because it is garbage legislation (again being generous) or it may hurt them in the next election. So what they do is lump a four-trillions dollar budget (big part of the problem right there) that includes all of the appropriations bills in what and what only Congress calls an omnibus bill. Which is a clever way is saying a large sack of garbage that nobody wants to put their hands through and see what is in it. Because they don't want to know.

Still wondering why Congress is so unpopular? If you are, perhaps you've just come home from a ten-year vacation in an Afghan cave with no access to any outside information. Or have been in a coma for the last 10-15 years. You would've had to, to be that clueless about the U.S. Congress assuming you are an American.





TruthOut: A.W. Gaffney: The Problem With the Private Option


Source:TruthOut 

You can get on right-wing governors for not expanding Medicaid in their state all you want. But the fact is if Medicaid wasn't an unfunded mandate to begin with which is a Federal program that is forced upon the states through law, but not paid for. Then we aren't seeing this right now and the Medicaid section of the Affordable Care Act probably doesn't get thrown out. Because Medicaid would be fully paid for meaning the Feds could say "you need to expand this program. You have the funds to pay for your current Medicaid costs and here are additional funds to pay for the expansion".

But since Medicaid is an unfunded mandate because the Feds don't cover the costs of Medicaid that they are required to by law states are having a hard time meeting their current Medicaid costs. Let alone having the money there to pay for an expansion. So the Supreme Court says that "the Medicaid expansion is constitutional, but since it is an unfunded mandate and the Feds don't have a very good record at meeting their financial promises, that the states don't have to expand their Medicaid program. And if they decide to do so the Feds have to cover their share of the costs.

The private option in Medicaid is a good idea. Medicaid really should be a state program to begin with and let all fifty states set up their own low-income health insurance system. Instead of the Feds trying to run one system for fifty states in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people. The private option is good because it would allow low-income Americans to have more say in their own lives and give them more responsibility and make them less dependent on the state for their survival. It would also cut Medicaid costs because less people and less poor people would be on Medicaid.

I realize anti-federalist Progressives who have this idea that big brother big government the central state should be planning the lives of everyone at least people who do not make enough money to manage their own affairs. And tend to see people especially Americans as stupid who can't make these decisions for themselves. But they are wrong because once Americans have the education and knowledge they are more qualified to make their own decisions then some government office who does not even know who they are.

Washington Examiner: Why Are Leftists Turning Against Freedom of Speech



Washington Examiner: Editorial- Why Are Leftists Turning Against Freedom of Speech

First of all it is not "Liberals who are turning against Freedom of Speech", just to correct the Washington Examiner editorial page. And you give me all you want about 'Modern Liberals' or contemporary Liberals. But Freedom of Speech is a liberal value from the start and still is. Liberals wrote the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Liberalism hasn't changed, but some of the people who call themselves Liberals have changed as far as how they think politically and ideologically.

Freedom of Speech is not the right to say anything pleasant or to say things that a lot of people approve of. But the right for free people to speak and express themselves freely as long as they aren't libeling, threatening, or inciting violence in public. Which is something that real Liberals understand, but like the Right the Left has its fringe as well with their own fascist wing. That says "this is what it means to be an American and a compassionate progressive person" and if you against what we believe, we are going to try to shut you up even through government force.

The far-left in America are interested in public welfare and progress even over freedom. They care about people's well-being to the point that they believe freedom should be so limited so that everyone can live well. And that just doesn't cover economic policy, but social policy as well. Liberals used to be stereotyped as people who believed in big government when it came to economic policy. But limited if not small government when it came to social and personal issues that came with a lot of personal freedom. But now we are stereotyped as people who believe in big government period and that social welfare and equality over everything including freedom.

The far-left believes that one freedom that Americans should have is not to have to hear things that offends them. Which is what the whole political correctness movement is about. Which is not about Freedom of Speech, but quality speech that they agree with and censoring speech that offends them. It is classic fascism and there is nothing liberal or I would argue even anything American about it. And people who believe in this certainly are not Liberals, but leftist fascists.




Report All News: President Obama: 'To Setup New Federal and Local Job Training Programs'

Source:Report All News- President Barack Obama: in Wisconsin talking about job training.
"President Obama to Setup New Federal and Local Job Training Programs

President Obama will visit General Electric's gas engine facility in Waukesha, Wis., Thursday to emphasize the importance of strengthening the nation's job training programs.

The plant -- which has operated here for 106 years and was acquired by GE in 2011 -- produces gas engines for oil and gas field operations as well as factories and utilities in the U.S. and overseas. The company has invested $35 million in the operation in the past three years and increased the number of hourly employees from 270 to nearly 400, according to spokesman Gary Sheffer."

"Waukesha is a staunchly-Republican part of the state -- Gov. Scott Walker (R) held his election party here in 2012 when he defeated Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, and every Republican presidential candidate since 1980 has won the country by double digits.

But the president is venturing here anyway, to highlight GE Energy's job training efforts. The firm works with a state workforce program to bring together employers, colleges, labor unions, and other community-based groups to train workers in advanced manufacturing, construction and other industries, according to White House officials."

"As he did in West Mifflin, Pa., on Wednesday., the president will tour the facility, make remarks and then sign a presidential memorandum. This directive will kick start an across-the-board review of how to best reform federal training programs, which Vice President Biden will oversee, to help Americans get the skills they need for good, in-demand jobs. Obama will also announce that he is directing Biden, along with the White House policy councils, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers and the secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education, to consult with experts from both parties on how to ensure training programs address the needs of employers. In addition, the president will launch a competition for the final $500 million of a community college training fund."

"President Barack Obama turned his focus here Thursday to efforts to improve job training programs nationwide, as he continued his efforts to show he is doing what he can on economic issues without Congress's help."

"The president's stop here kicked off the second day of his post-State of the Union tour meant to continue the momentum of Tuesday's speech, which focused heavily on executive actions.

Obama reiterated his desire to work with Congress but said he's willing to act "with or without" legislation. "I want to work with 'em, but I can't wait for them," he said on the floor of a General Electric plant here, just outside Milwaukee."

"The president then signed a memorandum directing Vice President Joe Biden to lead a "soup to nuts" review of job training programs with the goal of making the system better serve the demands of employers.

"With the economy shored up from the depths of his early presidency, Obama said, he's now turning his focus to efforts to expand opportunity for all Americans, which will be a priority "until I wave goodbye" when leaving office."

"In a letter sent to the president on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) argues that the House GOP has already passed legislation, the SKILLS Act, that includes a similar overhaul of job training programs and that the president's executive action is duplicative of a 2011 Government Accountability Office review of federal job training programs. "income inequality"  technology science  Syria " gun control"  terrorism Obama "minimum wage" "state of the union address" "state of the union 2014" "human rights" "abc news" "cbs news" "nbc news" "bbc news"

"Wall street digital" "rt news"  "breaking news" "world news" "global news" "latest news" "scientific news" "24 hour news" "apocalypse news" "job training" "white house" "jay carney" biden "jake tapper"

"community college training fund" White House press secretary Jay Carney didn't comment on the GAO report but did say that the president's decision to have Biden lead a review means that it will be done "and it will be effective and that's what the president expects."

Obama heads next to the McGavock Comprehensive High School in Nashville, Tenn. Before he leaves Waukesha, Obama will sit with CNN's Jake Tapper for his first interview since Tuesday's address to the nation. "

From Report All News

There are plenty parts of the Federal budget that I would like to cut back on and reform. Like in defense, agriculture subsidies, corporate welfare, red tape, but one area where I would like to see America spend a hell of a lot more money on as well as reforming the system would be in the areas of infrastructure, job training and education so we are more competitive with Europe, Brazil, China and Japan in these areas. Not to spend a lot more money on a bad system, or just to spend a lot more money. But to reform the system and invest whatever it takes in it to make it as effective as possible.

We could literally have a public education system in America not run by the Federal Government and still run by the states and locals primarily where every student is able to go to a good school. Where none of our teachers are underpaid and where none of our schools are underfunded including in very poor urban and areas. Where educators are paid based on how well their students are learning, not by how long they've been teaching. Where parents would have the choice to send their student to any public school in the district including a charter school. And where schools are funded based on need, not by where they are located.

We could do this by still having the states and locals be the first financial resource to funding schools. But where the Feds step in to provide the financial resources for schools that are in low-income districts so they have the resources that they need to be successful as well. This would require a huge investment probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars and would sort of look like a Marshall Plan but it would be domestic. And it would need to be paid for by not borrowing the money, but is something that we can afford to do.

As far as job training for low-skilled low-income adults. Whether they are working or not if they are collecting any form of public assistance I would make job training a requirement for them in order to receive public assistance. Public assistance would become an investment in human capital and investment in the economy. And no longer public charity, but money spent on improving the economic lives of people in need so they have the skills and freedom to be able to support themselves. Instead of staying on public assistance indefinitely with very little if any hope at becoming successful in life.

I would make job training and education universal not just K-12 or through college, but lifelong. And set up job training centers all over the country including in ever low-income urban and rural area in the country including for United States territories and commonwealths. And make it public-private partnership and bring in the non-profits in the private sector and reward them with grants to set up job training centers and offices for low-income low-skilled adults. Where these people would be their clients and their job would be to find them the right school and educational program for that client so the client can get the education they need to get themselves a good job.

Poverty is not something that we have to accept and put up with. You have to know why people are in poverty and them empower them based on that knowledge to work their way out of poverty. And the person them self has to take advantage of those opportunities that they need to get themselves the skills that they need to get out of poverty. And not just live in poverty with a few extra bucks from taxpayers and private donations.

Michelle Goldberg: 'Should Buying Sex Be Illegal?'

Source:The Nation- with an article about prostitution in Sweden.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The so-called “Swedish model” banning the purchase but not the sale of sex is catching on in Europe. But does it work? And for whom? 

Editor’s Note: Reporting for this article was funded by a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. 

“Felicia Anna” is the nom de Internet of a 27-year-old Romanian prostitute who has worked in one of Amsterdam’s famed window brothels for the last four years. This spring, she launched a blog, Behind the Red Light District, and when I was in Amsterdam reporting on prostitution laws, a Dutch advocate for sex workers’ rights suggested I read it. Anna’s writing, the advocate said, would help me better understand the reality of legalized prostitution—a reality far removed from the lurid tales told by European anti-prostitution campaigners who seek to criminalize the purchase of sex. 

Written in English, Behind the Red Light District takes on what Anna sees as the myths propagated by the “rescue industry,” the confluence of radical feminists, conservative Christians and members of law enforcement who seek to save girls from sex trafficking. Legally, Anna would probably be considered a victim of trafficking herself. She had few prospects in Romania, she said, where she could expect to earn 200 euros a month at most. Some friends had promised to help her find a bar or restaurant job in Italy, but it never came through. Finally, at loose ends, she spoke to a couple—an Amsterdam-based sex worker and her boyfriend—who promised that she could make a lot of money as a prostitute in the Netherlands, which legalized pimping and brothel-keeping in 2000. They got Anna started, buying her plane ticket, putting her up in their apartment and helping to arrange the necessary paperwork. In exchange, Anna had to pay them back all the money they spent, “plus a little extra for all the effort they put into it,” she says. 

But this was not, Anna insists, an exploitative situation. The couple was kind to her, functioning more as a helpful employment agency than as underworld thugs. The work turned out to be remunerative, and the independence it provided was empowering. “I have a good live [sic], have enough money to do whatever I want to do, and have all the freedom in the world to do what I want, whenever I want to,” she wrote on her blog. 

Anna is scathing about the so-called “Swedish model” (also referred to as the “Nordic model”), an approach pioneered in Sweden that bans the buying but not the selling of sex. For the last few years, the Swedish model has been ascendant in Europe. Norway and Iceland adopted it in 2009, and Ireland and France are both considering it, though its future in the latter country is increasingly uncertain after a defeat in a French Senate committee in July. Earlier this year, the European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution calling for Swedish-style laws throughout the continent. Dutch advocates for sex workers’ rights fear that such laws could eventually come to their famously liberal country. The variant of feminism that backs the Swedish model, says Anna, is a “growing cancer for prostitutes.” 

I e-mailed Anna, and she agreed to meet early on a recent Friday evening at a cafe in central Amsterdam, where she arrived with her Dutch boyfriend in tow. Anna is slight and pretty, with dark hair pulled into a tight ponytail. Her eyes, slanting up above high cheekbones, are ringed with thick black liner, and her eyebrows are painted in a dramatic arch. Given the voice of her blog, I expect her to be tough and sarcastic, but she’s nothing of the sort. She smiles a lot when she speaks, in English that is more broken than on her blog. 

How, I ask her, did she become so interested in the politics of prostitution? “Because of my boyfriend,” Anna replies. “I think if I don’t have him, I would still be one of the girls who really doesn’t know what is happening.” 

Her boyfriend, who speaks excellent English, has longish brown hair and a hint of a mustache and goatee; he’s wearing a gold-colored chain around his neck and another around his wrist. He works in IT, he says, but never seems to make much money. He met Anna two years ago as a client; before they got together, he lived outside the city because he couldn’t afford an apartment in Amsterdam. Her earnings—about 300 to 400 euros per shift, which can run anywhere from four to ten hours—are more than five times as much as his. 

As we talk, it becomes clear that the voice of the blog is at least as much his as hers. In conversation, he compares the Swedish model to Prohibition in the United States, a point also made on Behind the Red Light District. And while the online Felicia Anna says she’s been endangered by a client only once, the Felicia Anna sitting across from me says she’s had to call the police two or three times. Nor does she feel that she can call for help every time a client gets aggressive and starts demanding his money back: “You can’t call always the police, because sometimes then you have to call almost the whole night.” Her boyfriend chimes in to compare it to working late at night at a bar. “You can also get drunk guys late at night,” he says. “You can also have problems with them.” 

When I mention that Behind the Red Light District sounds like him, Anna tells me: “He help me a lot with it, because I work in the nighttime and I have to sleep, too. And I have my own stuff that I have to do—cleaning the house, shopping, sometimes cooking. I can’t do everything by myself.”

Basically, her boyfriend adds, “she dictates what I have to write, and I kind of fill in, smooth out the story line... 

From The Nation 

"In this video, I talk about traveling to The Netherlands and Sweden to investigate the growing push for bans on the buying but not the selling of sex – sometimes called the Swedish model -- and describe my ambiguous conclusions.  Ultimately, I found that the Swedish model of prostitution law, currently ascendant in Europe and likely to be enacted in Canada, works, but at some cost to some of the women in sex work that it purports to help." 

Source:Pulitzer Center- left-wing columnist Michelle Goldberg

From the Pulitzer Center 

Just one quick point on the Swedish prostitution law: if women were being arrested for selling their sex, but men weren’t for buying the the women’s sex, radical feminists and the Far-Left would be freaking out over that and saying how sexist it was. And they would be right. (For a change)

What Sweden has done is to say it’s legal for women to sell their sex. But it’s illegal for men to buy their sex. Which is also sexist. If you want to have credibility, at least with people who aren’t already on your side, when it comes to sexism and bigotry in general, you have to play it straight. (No pun intended)

Here’s an example where radical-feminists (to use Michelle Goldberg’s label) as well as Christian Conservatives as well as nanny statists on the Left and Right disagree with me as a Liberal. I’m in favor of legalizing prostitution and let me make that clear. I’m not in favor of prostitution, but I’m in favor of allowing for people to make these decisions for themselves. I have decided that prostitution is not for me as a job or as a customer. Millions of other Americans in and outside of Nevada have decided that prostitution is for them as a worker or customer and have never spent a day in jail for it. And that is really my point. Who should decide, the individual or government?

There are plenty of things that I would never do because of potential dangerous risks that come from them. And most of them are legal:

like owning and using firearms

smoking tobacco

drinking alcohol

bungee jumping

gambling

homosexual sex

hardcore porn. And hardcore porn not so much because of any danger factor, but I don’t have much of a taste for it. Perhaps you need to be more lonely or lonely period to appreciate solid hardcore porn. But being that as it may there are plenty of dangerous activities that are actually legal in this country.

These vices (if you want to call them that) are legal because we’ve decided that there there’s a limit to what government can do to protect a country of three-hundred fifteen-million people. And that we need to limit those resources except for a few exceptions to doing the things that we need government to do. Like protecting us from predators foreign and domestic. (To use as an example)

I’m not saying prostitution is a good thing, but like a lot of these other activities it would be safer if it is legal than illegal. Because government can regulate it to protect people from predators and the workers, employers and customers can pay taxes on it.

What happens when you legalize prostitution? Now government can step in to regulate it to make it as safe as possible. Because legal or illegal prostitution is not the oldest profession in  the world for nothing. And it is only going to get older  so you might as well legalize it. So only adults are involved and customers and workers are tested on a regular basis to prevent the spread of disease. And so taxes are paid on it which and people don’t have to pay other people’s taxes that they are not paying because they are involved in a illegal profession.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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