PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on Making a Deal With Iran

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

As far as the nuclear deal with Iran, what is the alternative? Invading a large country that is physically the size of Saudi Arabia, but with seventy-five-million people, where the people there tend to be somewhat pro-American, at least the young people. I mean look at Iraq, anyone want to call that a success? Iran is three times the size of Iraq with three times as many people. You want to take their nuclear program out through the air? You have to find it first. Again large country with a lot of people. There’s nothing to lose here for America and everything to gain. If Iran behaves, they won’t get nuclear weapons, they misbehave and will continue to pay the economical price for their bad behavior. Their people want to end the economic sanctions and it looks like so does their government. If you can negotiate with a giant the size of the Soviet Union back in the day that already had nuclear weapons and around four-hundred-million people, you can negotiate with a country that is not nearly as powerful or as large.

Politico Magazine: Tom Keane: Elizabeth Warren Meets The Ted Kennedy Myth

Politico Magazine: Opinion: Tom Keane: Elizabeth Warren Meets The Ted Kennedy Myth

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

We should be really careful to comparing people who are very new to elected office like Senator Elizabeth Warren, just elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, after never holding a seat in Congress before, or ever in elected office, to one of the political giants in American history. Like Ted Kennedy who was a giant as a U.S. Senator regardless of party, who was one the few members of Congress who really knew how to make it work. What it took to pass a bill in the Senate. The Democrats he would be able to count on and the Republicans he would need to work with to get the bill out of the Senate. And then the people he would need to work with in the House, again in both parties to get the bill out of Congress. Once the Senate and House pass their bills. And then what would it take to get the President to pass the final legislation.

Senator Kennedy could be as partisan as anyone in Congress and in Washington or in the country. But again he knew how the institution, especially the Senate worked and what to say and what not to say in order to get his bills passed. Right now, Senator Warren is a flame thrower. Someone whose great at getting her partisan arguments out and her people behind her and getting and keeping her name in the public eye. But after little over two years in the Senate, not much to show for herself as a legislature. What they have in common, they use similar partisan rhetoric for Republican special interests and perhaps the Republican Party in general. What they also have in common, is that they both don’t tend to attack Republicans personally. But concentrate on their policies. Which is very uncommon in todays hyper-partisan Congress.

All I’m really saying here is that Senator Kennedy and Senator Warren are different in their approaches. They use similar rhetoric, but Ted Kennedy was in the Senate to legislate. He was a legislature for public service before anything. Which is why he was so good at it because he spent so much time on it and knew how to work with people. Especially people who tended to disagree with him, like Senator Orrin Hatch. And use his Irish wit and charm to make people feel good, but also to see how likable he was. Senator Warren right now at least to me sounds like a political activist who also happens to be a U.S. Senator. But who seems more interested in fighting the good fight. Even if that means gridlock gets continued. Instead of working with the other side even to make policies as good as they can be.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie: 'Penn Jillette On Indiana RFRA: You're Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex'

Source:The New Democrat

From Reason Magazine

This whole so-called religious freedom law debate which is really what this isn’t about, but about creating some new right for people who are lets face it, are homophobic and hate homosexuality, is not about expanding religious freedom, or protecting religious freedom. It’s about creating a right for people who are so against homosexuality to the point they view gays as second-class citizens and not deserving of the same rights as straits, to discriminate against people simply because they are gay.

When business’s go public and are open for the public, they are exactly that. Whose the public? It’s all of us and all of our races, ethnicities and yes even sexualities. If you don’t want to serve the public, then open a private club and have it open for private membership only. And with your club you could only allow Christians, or Anglos, or Caucasians in general, or men, or straits of whoever you want your club to be open to, to serve. But if you run a store or a restaurant or some other business that is open to the public, than that is what you are. And you can’t deny service to people simply because you don’t like their race, color, ethnicity, or sexuality.

Protecting gays equal access to America is not about creating new rights for people. Since they already have the same rights as straits anyway. Fundamentalists Christian men aren’t being told that they have to bang men, or go to jail! And fundamentalist Christian women aren’t being told they have to bang women, or go to jail! If they want to continue to believe that gay sex and homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, but people banging their cousins, or aunts, or uncles is perfectly legitimate and if anything should be expanded, then they are more than welcome to continue to believe in those things. And be looked down upon as the ignorant idiots that they are. But a public business can’t deny access to people simple because of who they are

The Onion: Indiana Governor Insists Religious Freedom Law Has Nothing to do With Thing it Explicitly Intended to do

Source:The New Democrat

If I’m a governor of a state like Indiana, is passing laws to cut back on tourism and economic revenue really something that I would be interested in doing? Forget about me, because you could use anyone as an example for this. I mean what does Indiana have outside of Indianapolis, the Indianapolis 500 and a good NFL team and a good NBA team. Unless you love college basketball and auto racing why would you go to Indiana? To see how long to takes to get mugged, beaten, raped or murdered in Gary. Maybe go to a Notre Dame football game. But you’re a fan of Notre Dame like part of the alumni, you hate Notre Dame! And Notre Dame only plays six home games every year.

I don’t say these things to put Indiana down. But they do have a lot Christian fundamentalists who are stuck in the 1800s and actually still believe it is the 1800s. Because they don’t believe in calendars or anything. And that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, let alone work. And that gays are terrorists and not just people who are attracted to their gender instead of the opposite sex. And that pre-marital sex should be not just be a crime, but punishable by death. Except for these small factors, I’m sure Indiana is a great place to live. Unless you’re gay, or practice a non-Christian religion, perhaps come from another country, or even state.

You would think any state house worth its salt would have an office or at least someone in charge of gauging the economic impact of laws that the legislature passes and the Governor signs. That seems like commonsense anyway and Indiana does have very good schools there. Like Notre Dame and Indiana. So you would think there would be somewhere there to tell Governor Mike Pence, “look Governor, if you sign this law, we may see boycotts of our fair state. And as a result lose some serious tax revenue. Because business’s and other states who don’t look down at homosexuality, marriage or otherwise won’t want to be associated with a state that they see as discriminatory.”

And maybe Governor Pence had that person like a state economist and perhaps economics professors at one of their fine schools tell him those things. And Governor Pence said, “you know what, homosexuality is a sin! That must be wiped out! As Michelle Bachmann said it is a threat to our national security and that includes Indiana. We don’t want dem folk here and we are going to wipe them out. Which is more important than whether business’s and other states want to do business in our state.” No, I’m not saying that Governor Pence actually said that. Well used those words exactly, but he does represent a lot of people who feel that way. And comes from that wing of the Republican Party.

Ibhof: Video: Becoming Muhammad Ali: The Greatest of All-Time

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Was Muhammad Ali a great boxer? Was he a great champion? Was he a great entertainer? What he a great comedian? Was he a great poet? Was he a great civil rights spokesperson? Well the answer to all of these questions, except for maybe poet is yes. He was all of these things and did all of these things very well. Perhaps The Greatest of All-Time doing all of these things. That is how quick and intelligent he was. No one has know them self better and the people around him better than Muhammad Ali. And really the only mistake he’s ever made in life was fighting too long. Which of course has cost him the rest of his life. And he has to live with Parkinson’s.

But here’s a guy who dominated the media from a news, entertainment and sports perspective, as well as the heavyweight boxing division for about 15-20 years. He only time he didn’t dominate these fields was when he lost his boxing license because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. But he was the best, The Greatest of All-Time for a very long time. We never saw anyone as good pre-Muhammad Ali and haven’t seen a boxer and entertainer as good since. Muhammad Ali, is truly an American original.

Thom Hartmann: Video: This Week, Governor Mike Pence Doesn't Understand Discrimination

Source:The New Democrat

If a church whatever the church decided not perform gay weddings or inter-racial weddings or inter-ethnic weddings, they would be perfectly within their rights. Remember, Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Government won’t endorse religion or interfere without churches practice their religion. And members of churches are more than welcome to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are not equal to straights. And even express those views in public. Just as long as they are inciting violence or falsely accusing gays of lets say bad behavior. But we are not talking about that, which is why this so-called Indiana Religious Freedom Law will either get thrown out by the courts. Or Indiana will decide to scrap their own law because of the lost of economic revenue that will come to Indiana. With different states and private business’s and groups deciding not to do business in Indiana. This is not about religious freedom, but creating some new right for private groups that are open for the public, to deny access to people simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Which is bigotry and will be thrown out.

Washington Examiner: Stephen R. Smith: How to Make Retirement More Secure & Make Capitalism Work For All

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Stephen R. Smith: How to Make Retirement More Secure & Make Capitalism Work For All

Source:The New Democrat

How about instead of justing giving big successful companies and corporations subsidies for being successful and wealthy, which is what corporate welfare is, we put that taxpayer money to good use. We convert corporate welfare into corporate workfare. That is taxpayers are going to subsidize American corporations at all, that money has to be spent in America and invested in the American economy. No more subsidizing American jobs oversees. That instead that money is invested in Americans and American workers.

Pension plans would be an example of that. Subsidize American pension plans so American companies are incentivized to give their employees pensions.

Subsidizing stock options so workers can own a real stake in the company that they work for.

Subsidize education and retraining, especially for low-skilled low-income workers. So they can move up in the company that they work for. And actually get themselves a good job.

Subsidize expansions and redevelopment of companies so they are encouraged to expand their companies when it financially makes sense for them to do so. Instead cutting jobs and sending them oversees.

Subsidize cost of living increases so we can see some real wage growth in America again. Instead of wages going flat or decreasing because companies are struggling.

Instead of corporate welfare, let’s have corporate workfare and business workfare in general. So money that taxpayers are paying out to American companies goes to good American economic use. And not used to develop other countries and send jobs oversees.