Sunday, January 29, 2012

The Daily Caller: Video: HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher: Why Can't America be More Like Canada?

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

If you look at both America and Canada, you see two gigantic countries, the 2nd and 3rd largest countries in the world physically. And in America's case the 3rd largest population in the World with three-hundred-million people. We have basically the same people both ethnically and racially, a lot of people from Europe. But African and Asian minorities, Middle Eastern minorities and in America's case a lot of Latin-American minorities. Canada might have more Asians, especially in British Columbia. America has more Latin-Americans, two of the largest and most developed nations in the World. 

Both countries have strong capitalist economies with a lot of economic freedom. But Canada has a welfare state with a lot of socialism with its welfare state in the economy. But perhaps not as much as Europe. We both love sports and similar sports. We both like football, baseball and hockey. One country loves hockey, hopefully you can figure out which one on your own. The other country is starting to love hockey. We eat similar foods because again we have similar ethnic groups living in our countries. We both speak English and sound similar speaking English, but with slightly different accents. 

America depending on where you live, almost has a distinct accent for every state. And especially every region of the country. Canada perhaps the same for their provinces, but my experience with Canadians, is that they tend to sound like they are from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan. To me anyway Canadians sound like they are from the upper Midwest of the United States. Culturally America and Canada have a lot in common, which is why a lot of Americans go to Canada. And why a lot of Canadians come to America, but I would argue that Canadians come to America to work and live. 

Perhaps Canadians come here so they don't have to see blizzards or snow in April and October. Or to do some of the things they see Americans do on TV. Because they get all of our TV Networks and are very familiar with our culture and news. And are constantly reporting our own news and entertainment and sports. As if they don't have enough going on in their own country. But whatever as the saying goes, all news is good news. In America though, unless you have Direct TV or satellite or live in New England or the Northwest, you don't get the Canadian networks. You don't get to see The National from CBC News, which would be like NBC Nightly News in America. 

But Canadians get to see Nightly News, ABC World News, the CBS Evening News etc. We are very similar, which is why America has this old joke. That we see Canada as the 51st State, because if you fly or drive there from the United States, you might not know you're in a different country. Until you see advertising or street signs, something like that. But even though America and Canada are very similar, we are very different, especially politically. I'll bet you anything that the average Canadian knows as much about American politics, thats today's politics than the average American. 

But that most Americans probably don't know a damn thing about Canadian politics. I'm not one of them, I'm fairly familiar with Canadian politics and again because Canadians follow American news. And we are different because Canadians have a universal single payer health care system. Health Insurance provided by their Federal Government at taxpayers expense. And somehow think its crazy that Americans get to decide where to get their own health insurance. And that fifty-million Americans roughly don't even have health insurance, I agree with them on the last part. 

And that America except for our Far-Left and Far Right, has this liberal-libertarian view of politics. Of get government out of my wallet and bedrooms. Where Canadians pay their high tax rates with smiles on their face and celebrate Tax Day. One thing that Canada has on America though, they don't have a Religious-Right. I'm jealous of Canada as American of that. They don't have people that combine their religion with their politics.  America and Canada two great countries, there isn't another country in the world I would want to share a three-thousand mile border with. 

Even a country that says oot, aboot and agenst, oot and aboot, that says please for everything, even if they are cops. That says a as much as Germans say yah. And because of this Canadians would be the last people we would try to deport, not that we really deport anyone, with about fifteen-million illegal immigrants. But as any good friendship goes, we have plenty in common that makes us friends in the first place. But enough differences so we have things that we can learn about each other and reason to stay friends in the future.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

The Onion: Video: Did Media Treat Michelle Bachmann Unfairly Because She's an Insane Women

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

In many ways its easier to get attention these days, especially in the era of the information technology revolution, by saying things that make you sound like you’re from another planet. Or in Michelle Bachmann’s case, sound like you’re running for President, of another planet. Who wants to hear a politician say, “I’ll do what I believe is in the best interest of the country. I’ll make decisions based on what I believe is the best thing to do”. Every time there’s a politician or candidate who speaks like that, you can hear insomniacs snoring in the background, getting the best sleep of their lifetimes. Perhaps introducing their brains to sleep for the first time in their lives.

It’s the politicians and candidates, who say things, just to use Michelle Bachmann as an example who says things like, “same-sex marriage is the biggest threat to our national security”. I guess sometime before she said that, the United States won the War on Terror. I could’ve swore the War on Terror was a bigger threat. Or the national debt or deficit, unemployment were bigger threats. Perhaps Representative Bachmann misses the House Intelligence Committee meetings that she’s a member of, that released that information. But perhaps Barack Obama actually is God and fixed all these problems and hearing rumors that President Obama was God in disguise as a human being and President of the United States, was not a rumor, but a fact.

So now the biggest threat to American civilization is actually same- sex marriage. If you’re having a hard time reading that with a straight face, imagine how hard it was to write it. You know with the typing and everything, but hey maybe Representative Bachmann’s gay husband Marcus can fix the same-sex marriage issue, by converting gay people to straight. Its much easier I would say especially in America, because of our size and wealth, 310M people, the largest economy in the world and how far advanced we are technology wise and everything for Mentally Unbalanced people lets say to be nice, to get attention for themselves and whatever they think they are trying to accomplish.

The reason for is this is because of how abnormal the mentally handicapped are and they do and say things, that sane people just wouldn’t say or do. Mitt Romney only gets media attention for one of his speeches, when he says something that makes him seem out of touch. Like when he said he only made 400K$ giving speeches. Well 90% of the country would love to only 400K$ a year. But generally people don’t remember much if anything that Mitt said in one of his speeches.

And one of those reasons is, because Mitt one of the sanest people to ever run for President. The guy is about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal, which might be insulting to oatmeal. But when someone lets again use Michelle Bachamann, says something that sounds so far out in left field, or right field in Michelle’s case, that they couldn’t see centerfield with binoculars or a telescope, it gets reported right away. Because its crazy, interesting and provocative. And gives the “mainstream media” something else to make fun of.

If you’re lonely and feel like you’re not receiving your fair share of attention, give a crazy speech, say things like “America should be less Socialist like China”. Take pictures of your sensitive area and post them on Twitter, especially if you’re a Public Official. It will always work and you’ll always get attention for doing, excuse the term doing crazy shit like that. But one thing it just might not be the kind of attention you’re looking for. But as the saying goes, all free media is good media. I know I said no more blogs about Michelle Bachmann until she runs for reelection for House. But this popped in my head.
Michelle Bachmann

Thursday, January 26, 2012

First Lady Announces Healthier US School Meals: One way to cut our Healthcare Costs

America has a Healthcare System where we spend roughly 3T$ in an economy of 15T$ or 17-18% of our Gross National Product or GDP. We by far spend more of our GDP on our Healthcare System then any other Industrialized or Developed Nation in the World. And one of those reasons why, is that we don't take care of ourselves very well as a country. We eat too much, we don't eat healthy enough, we don't exercise enough. And then we wonder why half of America is either overweight or obese. Obesity is a disease that leads into other diseases that are even worse like diabetes or cancer. So if we just took better care of ourselves as a country, that alone would bring down our Healthcare Costs down. Because we would have less obese people, less people going to the Emergency Room with things like Heart Attacks, strokes. And other Preventable Emergencies, people consuming less Healthcare in America, because they would be healthier. And not have to consume as much Healthcare. Which would also make Safety Net Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Public Hospitals more affordable. It would also make our Private Health Insurance and Healthcare System more affordable. Because they would end up treating less people with Life Threatening Conditions. Like obesity, diabetes, cancer and others, because we wouldn't have as much people. With these conditions, because they would be taking better care of themselves.

What I'm talking about, in case it isn't obvious enough, is called Preventive Care. Thats what First Lady Obama was talking about today, she was promoting a form of Preventive Care. Which is eating healthy promoting Healthy Meals in our Public Schools, children are the easiest and most important group to address first. When we are talking about eating healthy and exercising while in school and out of school. So they can avoid developing Unhealthy Conditions once they become adults. Again obesity and your going to hear obesity a lot in this blog and if your currently obese. Its not to make fun of you but just because I care a lot about it. I have a Chronic Obese good friend, my Maternal Grandmother died from Colon Cancer. She was something like 100 pounds overweight, so its something that I care a lot about. Obesity, there it is again is a Preventable Disease, of course there are people who inherit that condition. From their parents and grandparents but obesity also comes when you don't take care of yourself. When you overeat, you don't eat well, a lot of Junk Food and Drink, you don't exercise, you don't even like to exercise. And focusing on children who aren't obese yet or are headed down that road. Is a great place to start and then we can help Obese Adults as well.

So if we were just to get Junk Food and Drink our of all of our Public Schools and just ban them. Establish k-12 Physical Education and force students to pass twelve years of Public Education. And actually require them to pass it and not just show up, participate in the activities and give their best effort. Tax Junk Food and Drink high, encourage people to eat healthy with discounts. And encourage exercise with Tax Credits, these things alone would bring down our Healthcare Costs. Because we would be healthier as a country and not have to consume as much Healthcare in the future.

Talking Points Memo: Video: Representative Michelle Bachmann, "We Should be Less Socialist Like China"

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

About three weeks ago after Representative Michelle Bachmann did Minnesota and the United States a favor by dropping out of the Republican race for president and then announcing a few days later that she wasn’t going to run for reelection to the House. That because of these things and that Michelle Bachmann would hopefully go home go back to the mental hospital, go back to high school and take a class on American history. Take a course about foreign policy and get the help that she needs. So in the future she’ll say less ignorant things and present them as fact.

Well that all sounds like a dream now and after she announced she’s running for reelection to the House. Hopefully House Democrats will give her a tough run this time, especially now that Representative Bachmann is very unpopular. Not only in her home State of Minnesota, but in her House district, thanks to her presidential campaign. After making a short story longer, I told myself that I was going to layoff Representative Bachmann, at least until her general election campaign in the fall. In the House and that’s assuming she wins the Republican primary, that might not be a safe bet after her presidential campaign, which is why she’s so unpopular in Minnesota right now.

So I found another ignorant thing that Representative Bachmann said in one of the November debates. When her presidential campaign was already on life support, something her political strategist Ed Rollins figured out. Which is why he resigned, but she didn’t figure out until January after getting just 5% of the vote in Iowa. During the November debate, Scott Pelley anchor of the CBS Evening News, asked the candidates something about the economy. And basically asked Representative Bachmann what is her economic policy, or something to that effect. She said in her own words, first she goes off about the LBJ Great Society and said that China doesn’t have things like cash transfers and Food Stamps as she called it. It’s no longer called Food Stamps.

And then Representative Bachmann said that “America should become less socialist like China”. Apparently according to Michelle Bachmann, America is more socialist than China. China being a country with state-owned industries. What’s the classic definition of socialism. The state owns the means and production of society. State-owned industries fits that like a glove. Now of course the People’s Republic no longer fits the classic definition of socialism. Which is good for them and the main reason why their economy is now the 2nd largest in the world, sorry Japan. Because they’ve privatized their economy and now have probably the largest growing private sectors in the world.

Representative Bachmann also said that China doesn’t have a welfare state unlike America. This is a person who serves on the House Intelligence Committee by the way. If being intelligent was a requirement to serve on that committee, Michelle Bachmann wouldn’t be qualified to serve on that committee. Article 14 of the P.R. Constitution China’s version of the U.S. Constitution, but obviously a hell of a lot different, states that the state meaning the P.R. Central Government builds and improves a welfare system that corresponds with the level of economic development in the country.

China has a Ministry of Human Resources and social welfare. That oversees a safety net that has programs like, cash transfers. Sounds like welfare or unemployment insurance right. Food assistance, sounds like Food Stamps right. Money for education for people who can’t afford to send their kids to school. Vouchers for health care and I’m sure other things as well. Representative Michelle Bachmann is a three term U.S. Representative from Minnesota, elected in 2006. The year Congressional Democrats took back Congress.

Michelle serves on the House Intelligence Committee, but she knows so much that isn’t true or just makes up things. As she goes along, she’s extremely partisan by nature, so maybe that’s her issue and that’s the closest thing I’ll say to being nice to her. Yet she’s constantly saying things that aren’t true. And hopefully as a result she won’t be back to serve in the 113th Congress next year.
Michelle Bachmann

Monday, January 23, 2012

C-SPAN: Dennis Prager's- 'Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse'

Source:C-SPAN- Right-wing radio talk show host Dennis Prager: speaking at the Western Conservative Summit -
Originally from Townhall Magazine?

Source:C-SPAN: Dennis Prager's- 'Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse'

The Left (as Conservatives like to call it), is wide-range group of political ideologies, ranging from liberalism where I am, to state socialism. (Meaning communism and Marxism) People especially on the Right, like to call communism part of the Left. But it's actually a mix of Far-Left on economic policy and Far-Right on social policy. Authoritarian across the board.

And a lot of times when the right-wing critiques the Left and liberalism, they lump the entire Left into one package. The Center- Left where I am, with the Far-Left Democratic Socialists and Communists.  And when the right-wing critiques the Left, as far as the role of government and claim how much we are in favor of big government, (by the way I find it hysterical when Christian-Nationalists put down big government because they criticize something they support. The right-wing likes to say how much we are in favor of the welfare state and want to make America like Europe.

When you critique the Left and you want to be accurate and honest, explain what part of the Left you're targeting. Because when you go after the welfare state and the so-called self-esteem movement, that we all people need to feel good, whether we deserve to be or not, you're not talking about Liberals, you're talking about Socialists. And when you go after the Left for being soft whether it's crime, welfare, defense, terrorism etc, you're talking about Socialists or Anarchists. But you're not talking about Liberals and Progressives who created the National Security State. The institutions we used to combat and win the Cold War, as well as World War II. Socialists, yes believe in big government, but mostly as it relates to economic policy. But tend to be liberal when it comes to social issues and believe in freedom of choice, at least on some issues. Unlike Christian-Nationalists,  who support big government on social policy.

The right-wing, unless they are Conservative-Libertarians, really have no business when it comes to critiquing liberalism. Because they tend to lump the entire Left into one pot. It would be like left- wingers saying that all Conservatives are bigots and hate minorities. And want to take America back to the 1950s and outlaw a lot of activities that are legal. And take away a lot of our individual liberty. Which is what a lot of Christian-Nationalists want to do. Just take a look at Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Great American who Knew and Spoke a lot of Truth

When I think of the late great US Senator and Public Servant Pat Moynihan a Progressive Democrat from New York. I think of someone who had clear political leanings being a Progressive Democrat from New York. But someone who said what he believed and knew, who had a lot to say because he knew so much. He basically spent his whole career in Public Service, serving in four consecutive Presidential Administrations. Starting with the Kennedy Administration and ending with the Ford Administration. To run for US Senate from New York in 1976, where he was elected. And reelected in 1982, 88 and 94, retiring in 2001, which opened the door. For Hillary Clinton to run for his seat in 2000 and get elected herself. He spent his whole career in Public Service studying, learning, writing and speaking out issues that he cared about. He had a big focus in Poverty in America, when he served in the Johnson Administration and had a role in creating the Great Society programs. Similar role in the Nixon Administration working on Domestic Affairs. And then moved to Foreign Policy in the Ford Administration, serving as US Ambassador to the United Nations. And had his keen knack of telling the truth and being honest about it. And could say things about, especially about Poverty in America. That if a lot of other caucasian men said those things, like the crumbling of the African American Family. Others would be seen as racist but Moynihan could say those things, because he saw it up front and knew what he was talking about. And people trusted him.

Pat Moynihan represents how Public Officials use to be, not all of them of course. But more then we have now, Public Officials and former Public Officials. People who say what they are thinking and what they know and aren't just some Talking Head. Speaking up for the person they work for but would speak up in private. When they disagree with their boss and offer advice in what they would like to be seen done. They wouldn't speak out against their boss in public, at least not while they are still working for them. But they would do it in private and when they strongly disagree with them. And feel the need to speak up about it because they believe what their boss is doing. Is dangerous for the country, they would resign their position. And then speak out, through the media, an Op Ed, and article, do interviews, write a book etc. I believe today we have more then we use to, Public Officials who are there. Because they feel the need to backup their boss and to make their boss look as good as they can. Because they either have a lot of respect for their boss or they feel working for that person. Whether they like them or not, will lead to bigger things for them down the road. Perhaps a Cabinet Position, Running for Office, or a big job in Corporate America. And doing that would just be unacceptable to Pat Moyninhan.

Pat Moynihan represents what America needs more, someone who looks and analyzes facts and situations. For what they are and not look at them to make them look as good or as bad. As they want them to in order, to push their Political Agenda. Or to make the current person in office looking as good or bad as they can. From their perspective to make their side look as good as bad as they can. To obtain more power then they have. Pat Moynihan was pre Spin Zone and the original author of the No Spin Zone. Because he saw facts for what they are, this is what the situation is as he knows it. And could also offer where to go from there.

Real Libs: What is Liberalism?

Source: Real Libs-
Source: Real Libs: What is Liberalism?

I've been asked and been labeled several different things since I've been blogging now three years about how I would describe my politics.

When I speak about things like individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice, people automatically assume I'm a Libertarian.

And when I speak in favor of things like decentralization of the Federal Government and I express concerns about big government and speak against things like single payer Medicare For All health insurance, or creating a 21st Century New Deal or speak in favor of American power even in a limited way like being in favor of the Libyan no fly zone, people assume I'm a Conservative. I've actually been called a Conservative on YouTube. I was called that to be insulted, which I wasn't, not that I'm a Conservative. But because I actually know what conservatism is and can differentiate between conservatism and neoconservatism or religious conservatism or even libertarianism.

I've been labeled a Classical Liberal, which so far has been the most accurate way to describe my politics. Especially if classical liberalism is used to differentiate from what's called "Modern Liberalism". Which I just call democratic socialism and I'll explain why later. To give you a clue about about I would describe my politics, just go to the link of the blog site. . The name of the blog site is called FRS FreeState, thats what my politics are.

I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility, as well as limited government, which leads to good government. And no you don't have to be a Libertarian to believe in these things. A lot of Libertarians today tend to be anti-government and I'm not one of those people. And I don't want government out of the economy all together as well.

Yes I have respect for Ron Paul and Milton Friednman and perhaps you've noticed. I've quoted Professor Friedman on this blog several times. But thats just because liberalism and libertarianism are similar and share certain values. But we are different and I just laid out a few differences. Liberalism is not libertarianism and it's certainly not socialism. Even though we have some things in common, as it comes to social issues.

Dennis Kucinich is no more a Liberal, than Rick Santorum is a Conservative. There what people call "Modern Liberals" and Neoconservatives. I'm a Liberal because I believe in liberal democracy, which is why I'm also a Liberal Democrat. Again because I believe in liberal democracy, individual liberty, personal responsibility, freedom of choice and limited government, equality of opportunity. These are all liberal values.

When you think libertarian, think of someone that yes believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom of choice. But all think of someone who wants to return the Federal Government, back to only what's laid out for it in the 10th and 11th Amendments. Meaning we would only have a State Department, Defense Department, Treasury Department and a Justice Department and thats about it. Thats what you call small government, which is different from limited government.

When you think of a Socialist, think of someone who believes in big government in the form of a welfare state. Socialists believe we need a large welfare state and high taxes to promote economic equality. And when you think of a Liberal, think of someone who believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. And limited government and that government should be used to empower people who need help but not take care of them.

I really blame the so-called mainstream media and our public education system for the lack of education that a lot of Americans have when it comes to American politics. And why Americans get Liberals mixed up with Socialists and Libertarians. And Conservatives mixed up with Libertarians and Neoconservatives. And why people who are Democratic Socialists, like Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Dennis Kucinich, are labeled Liberals, when we are really different from these other political factions.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

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

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


Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in small states 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 yuppie 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 Governor 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. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

So This is Washington: The Real Mitt Romney?: The Multiple Choice Politician

Who is Mitt Romney?
So This is Washington: The Real Mitt Romney?: The Multiple Choice Politician

Mitt Romney’s father George Romney as Governor of Michigan and as a presidential candidate, he was basically a Center-Right Republican. Strong economic Conservative credentials, but moderate-liberal on social issues. His son Mitt Romney in his heart fits into whatever faction of that Republican Party that remains today. Mitt’s problem is that what he believes in politically, doesn’t fit in very well with today’s Republican Party. So positions he takes in the past, like when he ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 and Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, doesn’t fit in with the rest of the Republican Party.

Where instead of contending with Moderates and Conservatives and even Liberals, he has to contend with Religious and Neoconservatives and now the Tea Party that has both of those political factions in it and even Libertarians. So when he’s running for Senate and Governor, he’s pro-choice on abortion. He was a moderate conservative Governor of Massachusetts. When he runs for President in 2007-08 and running in the Bible Belt, he decides to be the Christian Conservative Candidate. Because he knows Mike Huckabee is running and he’s going to need Christian Conservatives to be elected President of the United States.

Two problems that Romney had with that campaign, was that the Christian-Right didn’t believe him and they were correct. And that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and they see Mormonism as a cult. Anytime you try to appeal to a religious cult like the Christian-Right (as I would label them) you’re looking for trouble, but that also goes to your character, or lack of it. Trying to talk sense to cult followers, is like trying to take a shower without water. What’s the point.

I call Mitt Romney Flip Flopper because that’s what he does and what he is. The real Mitt Romney no longer fits in with the GOP. Those days are gone, this is no longer the Republican Party of Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Bob Dole and others. This is the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and others. So Romney feels the need to make up these new characters. Moderate Romney in 1994 and 2002, Bible Belt Romney in 2007-08 and now the businessman with results Romney in 2011-12. He’s whoever he feels he needs to be to get the job he’s running for and his act is running dry.

Which is why the Republican Party is not sold on him yet and if you look at these GOP presidential debates a strong presidential candidate could knock most of those schmucks out. But because we are talking about Mitt Romney, he gets to appear on the same stage as Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and the audience is left to wonder who won. Ron Reagan with this lack of competition, would’ve already had the GOP nomination in the bag by now. You ask Mitt Romney who is Mitt Romney and you get several different answers from the same person.

And you’re thinking, “he just described several different people. I’m not sure he knows who he is, if he gave you and honest answer.” He might say, “I’m who I believe I need to be in order to get to where I want to be.” (Under truth serum) Which would be true, but he doesn’t have the guts to say that and his political career, I mean his running for office career would be over. He’s only held one public office, because he’s lost almost every election he’s ever ran for. Again because of the multiple personality Mitt he’s become a career campaigner who rarely wins, but goes by the notion, “once you fail, try, try again.”

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Democracy Review: Video: HBO's Real Time: Bill Maher on Un-Presidential Campaign For President

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

The leadership in the Republican Party in 2011 or so decided that Mitt Romney was going to become the presidential nominee in 2012. And that they decided that they were going to do whatever they could to make that happen. And now they are pardon the phrase, shitting bricks, because their guy, the supposed frontrunner Mitt Romney, has only won 1-3 of the first Republican contests. Hardly looking like a frontrunner. 

Mitt Romney, someone who won't even defend himself. By saying that "I was in corporate America, I made a lot of money taking failing companies and turning them around. And sometimes that means you have to lay people off, in order to save the company. And so you don't have to fire more people in the future and be able to hire more people. And I made a lot of money because I turned these companies around, that are now successful". That's called American capitalism, there's nothing wrong with being successful in life. 

Especially when others benefit from that success and you do it legally. Not by screwing people over, especially with a smile on your face. That's what Mitt Romney should be saying about his business career, but wait we are talking about Mitt Romney. Aka Flip Flopper, the man who feels the need to please everyone he meets, who can't come up with a simple answer to any question. 

I hate to say this because I have a lot of respect for Senator John Kerry. He's one of my favorite members of Congress, but Mitt Romney in 2012, is looking like John Kerry from 2004. And because of Mitt's inability to communicate to Republican voters, you know we aint talking Albert Einstein here, Republican Voters are fairly simple people. "Keep my taxes and regulations down, cut them whenever possible, defend the nation, Jesus, guns and country". And Mitt doesn't seem able to speak their language. 

And because of this, as well as being the master of flip flops and I'm not talking about feet, Mitt Romney finds himself in his political battle of his lifetime. Against someone with a 27% approval rating nationally and 56% negative rating in Newt Gingrich. On stage debating people like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum and hasn't really won a debate yet. At least since he came back against Rick Perry in September. If Mitt Romney is a frontrunner, I sure as hell would like to know what the joke candidate looks like. 

Well that would be Michelle Bachmann, but she's back in the nut U.S. House. So now we need someone else to take that role and that since Newt has already cut Mitt's big lead in Florida, the GOP establishment may be looking to replace Mitt and the GOP base which is different from the establishment. We are not there yet but if the Newter wins Florida and he'll have a couple of opportunities to do that this week, they are playing in Newt's territory with two big Florida debates, all hell could break lose in the GOP. 

Which finally gets me to Sarah Palin who I said a year ago would not run for president in 2012. Even though she would be my favorite Republican candidate, to make fun of. And be President Obama's personal escort to reelection, but she's not going to do us that favor. And put the country through the pain and embarrassment of her presidential campaign. But I could see a post Mitt campaign, a call to the bullpen if you will, if the GOP establishment feels Mitt is no longer up to it. Will either be beat by Newt, or get pushed by Newt to the Republican convention. With no one knowing who won, until they actually count the votes. 1976 all over again. 

CEA Chairman Alan Krueger on Income Inequality: How to fix that

Over the last thirty years or so, the wealth of High Earners has gone up while the Middle Class wealth has been somewhat flat. We did see a reduction of poverty in the 1990s after it rose in the 1980s. But thats now back up thanks to the recession of 2001-02 and the "Great Recession" of 2008. That we are still struggling to recover from and the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003. Where the Middle Class did benefit from but where High Earners have done extremely well. And have been the only Economic Class that has seen their wealth increase the last ten years. Has contributed to our Income Inequality but that hasn't been the only issue. The last 10-20 years our Education System has declined, to the point that we are now ranked 39th in the World. So we are not producing as many qualified workers as we use to. So now fewer workers have the skills that they need to get a good job, join the Middle Class and move up from there. But if your wealthy and you went to good schools, Public or Private. You either live in an area with excellent Public Schools or you can send your kids to Private Schools. And they can get the skills that they need to go on to college and of course you'll be able to afford to send them to college. And they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job, join the Middle Class and move up from there. These are the issues we face and why we have Income Inequality in America.

There's nothing wrong with having a lot of wealthy people in America, as long as they earned their money. By being very productive and not screwing people out of their money. But by producing Quality Products and Services that people can afford to buy and want to have. What is bad for a Liberal Democracy, is to have a lot of High Earners and a lot of Low Earners. And fewer and fewer Middle Earners, where the High Earners see their wealth skyrocketing. The Middle Earners seeing their wealth flattening or going down and the Low Earners seeing whatever money they have dropping. To the point where they become even more dependent on Public Assistance for their Daily Survival. And more of a drain on society, what we need to do instead. Is have an Economic System that encourages people to get a good education, work hard and be productive. Lets those people create a lot of that wealth that they created but for the people that didn't get the skills that they need. To be successful in life and become Self Sufficient where they are not collecting Public Assistance to survive. We empower them to get the skills that they need to become Self Sufficient. And climb the economic scale.

We'll never have what would be called True Economic Equality, we will never have that in a Liberal Democracy with a Capitalist Economy. We wouldn't get there if we were a Socialist Democracy either, look at Scandinavia. They have High, Middle and Low Income people as well, just fewer Low Earners as a percentage then we do. But we can have lesser and more manageable Income Inequality with a better Education System and retraining our Middle and Low Income Workers. By increasing the size of the pot not by shrinking it and taking from the few to support the rest.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Gene Sperling on the Social Compact: The Role of Government and Deficit Reduction

Gene Sperling President Obama's Director of Economic Policy or something to that effect. Said something to the effect that he hates Deficit Reduction and that no one likes Deficit Reduction. And he also said that Americans are willing to do their part in Deficit Reduction, pay their price. If the whole country is in it and not getting out of Deficit Reduction. The second part I agree with him on, the first part I disagree with him on. I personally love Deficit Reduction as someone who believes in Fiscal Responsibility. And so do a lot of other Americans, because it gives us an opportunity to make our case. To eliminate a lot of the junk and waste in the Federal Budget. Cut back on things that we shouldn't be doing and reform things. That are in our National Interest, for example does the United States really need to at our expense. Defend Developed Nations around the World, that have the resources to defend themselves and spend 200-300B$ a year doing that. I of course would argue no and bring those troops home from Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. And apply that revenue to Deficit Reduction. Do we really need to spend 50-100B$ a year in Agriculture Subsidy's and give a lot of that money. To successful farmers, just another version of Corporate Welfare. I of course would argue no and speaking of Corporate Welfare, do we really need to spend 50-100B$ a year in other Corporate Welfare. Thats where a lot of the Special Interest corruption comes from in the Federal Government, that Sen. Tom Coburn and Sen. John McCain talk about all the time.

To give up another example does the Federal Government really need to spend 1-1.5T$ a year managing our Safety Net. Or can this be done better at the State and Local Levels, as well as the Non Profit Sector. In the Private Sector, this is an idea I've been pushing for a couple of months now. Getting our Social Insurance System and I mean all of it, not just the Giants like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. But the whole Menu of Social Insurance thats in the Federal Budget and passing it off to the Non Profit Community Service Sector. And let each State set up their own Social Insurance System and see what other ideas are out there. Transform these programs from being Sustaining Programs, where they help take care of people in need. To Empowerment Programs that are designed to help get on their feet and be Self Sufficient. Do we need the Federal Government running the Postal Service, they are in debt right now. Probably going to have to slash their Healthcare and Retirement Funds. Thats what you get then the Feds try to Micro Manage large organizations. There's a lot of things that the Federal Government currently does, that its not very good at. That could be run better by other groups or should be eliminated. And thats without even getting into the Tax Code.

Another thing I like about debating Deficit Reduction it gives an opportunity to debate the Role of Government. Especially the Federal Government, I even enjoy listening to the fringes in this debate. One side arguing that the Federal Government should be doing practically nothing. And the other fringe arguing that the Federal Government should be doing practically everything. They make for a great comedy, especially when they are debating each other on TV. You don't get to hear much in the debate though. Because they spend most of their time yelling at each other at the same time. But this is a great debate to have especially amongst the adults in the room.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Unemployment Ticks Down to 8.5%: Good news for America and The President

Another good looking Jobs Report and a month of solid Job Growth, with 200K Jobs created in December. A lot of that probably has to do with the Holiday Season. So we'll see if we have a dip in January as a result or is this a sign of things to come. A falling Unemployment Rate as well from 8.6 to 8.5%. Our struggling Manufacturing Industry also picked up as well so thats another good sign. The questions are two from an Economic Point of View, does this mean we are on course. To finally putting the "Great Recession" behind us and in the road to having a strong economy again. If the Payroll Tax Cut doesn't get extended in February, I would say no. Because that would mean a lot less money in the hands of Middle Class and Low Income workers. If its extended for a year then that will be a big help, if its extended indefinitely. And Social Security is Reformed long term, then it will be an even bigger boost to the economy. Because no longer would workers have to see 6.2% from the Payroll Tax taken away from them. To go along with Income Taxes and everything else. The other question is political, not as important but important. If the Unemployment Rate is still 8.5% as we hit November, President Obama will lose reelection, unless the GOP nominates Rick Santorum. Then maybe the President can pull out a close victory. If we get under 8% and start moving towards 7.5% and lower, similar to 1984 with Ronald Reagan. I believe the President will get reelected and fairly comfortably.

What we should be doing is looking to see how we can put those Unemployed Workers. Who probably by now feel they've been looking for work forever without any results. Back to work and to me that gets to reforming the Unemployment Insurance System and turning it into to. A Job Placement System where yes Unemployed Workers can collect Temporary Unemployment Insurance. But they have to be looking for work as they are collecting it. And even get help going back to school and going through Job Training, Job Fairs that sorta thing . As well as working with a Job Placement Worker to help them find another job. Before their Unemployment Insurance runs. Similar to what we did in 1996 with the Welfare Insurance System better known as Welfare to Work. This should be part of any Jobs Act thats passed in 2012, along with extending the Payroll Tax Cut. We should be paying Unemployment Workers so they can keep their homes etc. But also pay them find jobs and get retrained not sit at home and wait for someone to call them. The other thing we should be doing, has to do with the Manufacturing and Construction Industries. Like Infrastructure Investment and other things.

200K created in December is definitely good news and with President Obama reducing the size of the Military. That means more people will leave the Military. Which will help us lower our Budget Deficit and it will also mean more Well Trained Workers will enter the Job Market. But we still have a long way to go until we once again have a strong economy.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

C-SPAN: George Will- 'Dependency on Government is The Liberal Agenda'

Source:C-SPAN- Conservative columnist George Will, at CPAC in 2010
Source: C-SPAN: George Will- Dependency on Government is The Liberal Agenda


Ronald Reagan a man I'm sure the great conservative author and columnist George Will admires, had a saying: "that it's not that people don't know thats the problem, but it's the amount that people don't know that's not true thats the problem." And the people who are dangerous are the people who who know so much thats not true and actually believe what they say. Representative Michele Bachmann, qualifies for the ladder.

George Will who I like for his sharp wit and intellect about politics, sports and other issues qualifies for the former when it comes to liberalism. I'm a Liberal and damn proud of it that's how I describe my politics and it's always how I've been describing my politics since I started following politics in my late teens. I'm a Liberal Democrat because I believe in liberal democracy and thats what liberalism is about. Liberty for the individual. Not because I believe in state or that government's job is to make society equal.

Government's role is to insure that everyone has a good opportunity to reach their potential in life. Based on what they contribute to society. Not to try to manage outcomes and thats what separates Liberals from Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, who believe the role of government is to insure that equality of outcome is insured in society. Not equality of opportunity, which are two different things.

And what George Will is describing when he talks about liberalism, looks like socialism, which are different political ideology's from liberalism. I've never called myself a Progressive because today's definition of Progressive and perhaps in the past, even though the first eight letters in progressive spells progress and if Progressive is someone who believes in progress then I'm definitely a Progressive. But the popular definition of Progressive is someone who believes in using government to insure quality outcomes in society.

Someone who wants to use government to ensure equality of outcome in society. Which is different than equality of opportunity, that's a simple definition. But the best way to ensure equality of opportunity I believe as a Liberal, is through individual liberty. Empowering people through education and job training. So they can have the individual liberty to reach their full-potential. If I was a Socialist, I would believe in using government by empowering it to ensure equality of outcomes.

Socialists, would raise taxes on people who are already doing well, to take care of the people not empower the disadvantage, but take care of the people who are disadvantage. With high tax rates on the rich and probably middle class as well. And that's George Will's whole point about government dependence. To talk about liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism whatever it may be, it helps to know what you're talking about.

Assholes, quite frankly speaking out of their ass. Liberalism and progressivism or socialism, are three different political ideology's and not one in the same. And Conservatives especially ( Christian-Nationalists, who are different from Conservatives) like to make Liberals look bad by trying to make us look like Socialists. But Liberals believe in defending liberty and expanding it for people who don't have it. People who are struggling have the opportunity to become independent and make their own way life. That is what Liberals believes is a proper role of government. Not to take from the wealthy to manage the daily lives of people who are doing well. Or outlaw wealth all together so everyone is dependent on government. Which is what Socialists tend to push and are in favor of.

This is not a debate about government doing everything, or almost nothing. But instead a debate about government doing practically everything, versus limiting government to doing only what it does well. Including helping people who are snuggling achieve economic freedom for themselves. The Socialist versus Liberal debate, instead of Liberal vs Liberal, radical Liberals (who are actually Socialists and even illiberal) vs Center-Left Liberals who push for liberal democracy and a society where everyone has a quality opportunity to succeed in life on their own.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Scared Straight: Trying to Scare Risk at Youth away from being Criminals

There are several Jails and Prisons across America including at least one in my State of Maryland. That has a program designed to help kids that have been labeled "Risk at Youth". Who have bad Behavioral Records in school and sometimes bad Educational Records at school. Students that are at risk of dropping out of High School or getting expelled. Because their schools are tired of dealing with their Bad Behavior and students who feel they are wasting their time in school. And are considering dropping out of school to join up with a gang and make some easy money. Getting involved in narcotics, jacking cars and homes, physically hurting and murdering people. If you look at our current Prison Population, its made up of a lot of adults. Who were "Risk at Youth", who were kids that society wasn't able to reach in time. Who dropped out of High School to start their Criminal Careers and some of these people have realized the mistakes. They've made early in life and want to help the next generation. To try to prevent them from making the same mistakes that they've made, so they don't end up in the Criminal Justice System and in Prison. The TV Network A&E even has a program that covers what some of these prisons are doing. The Maryland Prison was part of that series that I saw. And they show these kids what life in prison is like, where they sleep, who they live with. What they eat which would be scary enough for me, what's it liked to be Stripped Searched.

To talk about Prison Inmates themselves, this is what they should be doing, instead of hanging out in their cells. Or on the yard or in the Day Room, not only giving back to society. Probably not enough to pay back what they took but give back and try to prevent kids from making the same mistakes they did. To prevent the future Narcotics Dealers, Gang Bangers, Car and Home Jackers, murderers, rapists, batterers etc. Show these kids know that their are serious consequences and prices that have to be paid for Criminal Behavior. That being a criminal is not free and they are paying serious prices for what they've done. And society has decided that they are going to collect on the debts that some of these Prison Inmates have made. Some of these Inmates are paying such a heavy price for their crimes, that they will never leave prison alive. Which is a big help for these Inmates because a lot of them will actually leave Prison. And this will help them turn their lives around and perhaps give them a skill. To take once they are on the outside doing Community Service.

If your interested in Prison Reform, Crime and Punishment, Crime Prevention stopping Future Criminals from becoming Criminals. By making sure they finish school and go from there to college, military or whatever it may be. Something positive that they can do with their lives. Which I sure as hell am or I wouldn't be blogging about this, then you should look into Scared Straight. And other Community Service Programs, as well as Prison Reform Programs. That push for well Prison Reform so we can give our Inmates and opportunity to turn their lives around.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Life After Prison: Saverio "Sammy" Telesco's story: How to Rehabilitate Prison Inmates

If the Definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Then the Prison Systems in America is the Definition of Insanity. We lock people up for things that they do to themselves, we lock people up when we would be better off. With Alternative Sentencing, people who are Non Violent Offenders who don't represent much of a threat to society. But need discipline and an opportunity to turn their lives around. Something that Halfway Houses and Drug Rehab instead of Jails and Prisons can provide. Which is better financially and would do a better job of preventing future offenders from having to go to prison. What we do instead is lockup Non Violent Offenders in Prison where they are surrounded by Violent Offenders. And what do they do in that environment, they are taught the Lesson of Survival. If you want to survive Life in Prison, whether your serving a Life Sentence or not, to get along you have to go along. They basically learn how to become criminals and become Violent Offenders and in a lot of cases. End up getting their sentences extended because of the additional offenses they commit in prison. With our Violent Offenders and other Dangerous Offenders, we give them no hope of turning their lives around. And basically just warehouse them and when they do get out and a lot of them do. They end up back in prison because the only thing they know. Is how to be a criminal.

What we should be doing with our Offenders and I'm going to focus on our Offenders that need to be in Prison. Halfway Houses are for Non Violent Offenders and people just being released from Prison. To help them find a job, get an ID, a place to live, Job Training that sort of thing. But with our Dangerous Offenders what we should be doing is not going soft, they need to know why they are in Prison. And hopefully decide for themselves they don't want to be in Prison their whole lives. But as we are doing that, give them the opportunity to turn their lives around. With things like education so they can get the skills that they need to work in Prison but work on the outside as well. And give up their Criminal Careers, Job Training so again they can work in and outside of Prison. Counseling especially for our Violent Offenders, things like Anger Management. But then put them to work so they can get themselves Job Skills and Work Experience. But also so they can contribute to their own stay in Prison. Give them the jobs that are needed to run the Prison outside of the Prison Staff. But also restore Prison Industries so our Prisons can start producing things again that they can sell. Produced by our Prison Inmates and then pay our Inmates for the work that they do and produced with some of the profits that are made. And they can pay for their time in Prison but also send money back to their families and victims.

Anytime your spending more money on your Corrections System then your spending on Education and Infrastructure Investment. You know you have a problem, that you have a lot of Inmates and Prisons. And your Corrections System is taking money away that could be spent to give our students an opportunity. To stay out of Prison in the first place and recognizing that we have so many people in prison . We obviously can't release everybody most of them need to be in Prison but for those people who need to be there. We should give them and opportunity to turn their lives around. So they don't need to come back in the future.

Monday, January 2, 2012

CNN: Bill Clinton 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech- Home Run

Source: CNN- President William J. Clinton- 1993-2001-
Source: CNN: Bill Clinton 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech

Happy Holidays and New Year to everyone what a better way to kickoff 2012 then a blog about the 2012 Presidential Election

Back in 2008 after Senator John McCain a man who I do have a lot of respect for and like, we just disagree on a lot of things, when he won the Republican nomination for president in 2008, didn't dare to ask Ronald Reagan's famous question from 1980. "Are you better off today then you were four years ago?" Or even expand that to eight years, because of course most of the country wasn't. And this was just a month before the Great Recession of 2008 happened and things got a hell of a lot worse. Think about from 1993-2001. America created twenty-two-million jobs, we had 4.5% unemployment, we were growing at around 5% GDP, peace at home and abroad, record lows for the good things. Poverty, crime, unemployment. Budget surplus and all of those by 2008 were going in reverse. Including fighting two wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan we were clearly right to attack them for their role in 9/11. Iraq, well Neoconservatives are still coming for reasons almost nine years later for that war.

So then Senator Barack Obama was inheriting a party that was going up in popularity. That America was ready to take another look at giving them the leadership of the country. The White House and Congress, where Senator John McCain was inheriting a party that was led by one of the most unpopular President's we've ever had. John McCain inherited all of the problems that had come about during the Bush Administration 2008 for the Republican Party. For me, I would compare it with 1980 for the Democratic Party with all the problems that happened with the Carter Administration. In 2012 most likely President Obama won't be able to ask the question, "are you better off today, then you were four years ago". Because he won't like most of the answers he hears to that question. But he can do what President Roosevelt did in 1936. "Four years is not enough to turn the country around the problems we inherited when we took over, are far too great to solve in four years. But we are making progress and things are getting better."

We are improving much faster then we would've had John McCain been elected President. Because he was running on having four more years of President Bush. And wasn't able to separate himself from the Bush Administration. President Bush and Senator McCain were joined at the hip together. Give us four more years and you'll see America take off, more jobs, lower unemployment, lower health care Costs, more people with health insurance, we'll be out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. All things we won't accomplish if you elect Mitt Romney or Ron Paul for President. President Obama won't be able to do in 2012 what President Clinton was able to do in 1996. Or President Reagan in 1984, "are you better off today then you were four years ago?" Three years later we are still at 8.2% unemployment and pushing 20% officially in poverty. We still have a net loss in job creation, but all the important factors are improving with rising economic and job growth. Reelect President Obama and these things will be even better then they would had a Republican won the presidency.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy