Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Hill: Representative Raul Grijalva: 'What We Need is a New Deal'

Source:The Hill- U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (Democrat, Arizona) Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"Fiscal negotiations are the talk of Washington, but they’re not the
talk around the dinner tables of millions of hard-working Americans. As
usual, the conventional wisdom — and a lot of the media — is missing
the real story.

The real story is that we have a jobs shortage crisis in this country, and Republicans haven’t lifted a finger to help. Democrats have put up the Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act, the American Jobs Act and several other landmark pieces of jobs legislation that Republicans killed sight unseen. They didn’t even pretend to have alternatives.

{mosads}It’s one thing to miss a story as it happens. Reporters can’t be everywhere all the time. But it’s quite another to miss the real story, day in and day out, week after week after week, for more than a year. Voters care about the economy first and foremost, and people are hurting for Washington to show some leadership.

Working people aren’t talking about Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) latest comments or who’s taking Grover Norquist’s no-taxes pledge. They’re talking about putting food on the table. Doesn’t anyone out there want to tell that story? The Progressive Caucus introduced the Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act, which would create millions of jobs and rebuild U.S. infrastructure, because we’ve heard it all across the country and we know it’s past time Congress made itself useful.

For some reason, jobs aren’t something editors seem to know how to cover or professional deficit scolds know how to deal with. That doesn’t make unemployment any less real. Jobs are the issue driving our economy. Getting more people to work and paying taxes will bring much greater rewards than cutting school lunch programs. The media, the Beltway gang, and some of my colleagues who can’t wait to cut a deal — at any cost to the country and their own constituents — just don’t seem to understand that.

Unemployment in this country will be much too high until the federal government stops twiddling its thumbs and gets serious. The American people were just subjected to an 18-month monologue from Mitt Romney and the Republican Party about the need to cut corporate taxes and let private-sector wizards fix everything out of the goodness of their hearts. That argument was tossed out on its ear. Pundits, and my friends in Congress, should take notice.

The “serious people” who get paid to talk about being tough on working people, grandparents and the middle class — instead of bringing our tax code in line with reality or getting Americans back to work — are only kidding themselves. Voters aren’t buying it. With 60 percent of voters in the CNN Election Day exit poll saying the economy is their No. 1 issue, and only 17 percent saying the same of the deficit, why can’t we even have a conversation in Washington about getting the economy back on track?

We can’t have that conversation, apparently, because the Republican Party doesn’t want to have that conversation. What jobs bills have they put out there that would actually create jobs, instead of cutting tax rates and hoping the benefits trickle down to the rest of us? What have they said — before, during or after the election — that suggests they really get it? I can’t be the only one who’s noticed this.

But that’s not what gets covered. What gets covered is the idea that we have to cut Social Security, even though it doesn’t contribute a nickel to the deficit, because a few wealthy special interest groups think it’s a good idea. What gets covered is Tea Party noisemaking about ending Medicare and Medicaid, as though that will ever happen. What gets covered is who’s up and who’s down in the halls of power each minute of the day according to some magic barometer only a few people really understand.

Let’s stop talking about fiscal deadlines as though they’re a one-way cliff to the abyss and start talking about them as opportunities to fix what’s really ailing this country. We’re millions of jobs short of full employment not because of Social Security, but because the financial collapse put people out of work and our policies haven’t caught up yet.

We need direct employment efforts on the scale of the New Deal — building new roads and schools, hiring more teachers and nurses, training young people for future careers — if we’re really going to get ourselves back on track. Massive cuts and radical redistribution of wealth upward to the richest 2 percent aren’t the answer. Voters know it and they said it loud and clear. Why isn’t Washington listening? Why isn’t the media listening?

Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona, is co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus." 

From The Hill

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

President Harry S. Truman: First Speech To Congress (1945)

Source:History- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) addressing a joint session of Congress for the very first time as President, in 1945.

“On April 16, 1945, Harry Truman makes his first official appearance before Congress as president of the United States, after being sworn in following the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt four days earlier. In his speech, Truman pledges to bring World War II to a victorious end.”

From History 
Source:James Miller Center- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) I believe meeting with his National Security Council.

“You can listen to the full speech at the Miller Center’s Presidential Speeches page…

 Imagine living on a desert island all by yourself or locked up in solitary confinement for months and then suddenly being released one day and being told you have to run a very large organization. Like I don’t know, wait I got it: the Executive Branch of the United States.

Granted Harry Truman was only Vice President for a few months before he became President in 1945. But President Franklin Roosevelt and the cabinet didn’t keep the Vice President in the light when he was there. He didn’t know about the atomic bomb program and wasn’t getting briefings about what was going on in World War II that was still happening both in Europe and the Far East when Truman became President in 1945. Very few people had even ever heard of Vice President Harry Truman before he became President, even though he was in the Senate ten years before that.

So when our brand new President of the United States Harry Truman, goes up to Congress for the second time since leaving the Senate to speak to his former colleagues there, I don’t think anyone there knew what to expect from him and what President Truman might say.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, probably knew Harry Truman fairly well. at least in the Senate. But Truman at least before becoming President wasn’t a very highly respected man. He was basically seen as a small town hick from Missouri. Who had never seen a big city before he came to Washington in the 1930s.

Harry Truman was always a very under appreciated and underrated man who thrived on that, because even though he was never someone who commanded high confidence, was very intelligent and had good judgment and tended to make the right decisions.

So when President Harry Truman speaks to Congress for the first time as President in 1945, he was speaking 535 men for the most part in Congress and millions of Americans, who in Congress’s case didn’t know what to expect from him. And in America’s case was hearing from their band new leader who they never even heard of.

President Truman was also replacing perhaps the most popular president in American history in Franklin Roosevelt during a time when America was still at war, when the economy was still trying to recover from the Great Recession.

President Truman was a man who until he was fifty-years old, never had a job with much responsibility since leaving the Army after World War I. The U.S. Senate was his first major job where he had any real power and responsibility on his own. And he was 50 when he became a Senator. So this all made for a very interesting presidential address. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Senate Democrats: Majority Leader Harry Reid: 'On Filibuster Reform: I Want The Record To Be Very Clear'

Source:Senate Democrats- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Nevada Senator Harry Reid addresses the need for filibuster reform from the Senate floor." 

What Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is talking about here is that he's not trying to or wants to eliminate the filibuster. He just wants the minority party whether it's the Republican Party like today or the Democratic Party, just six years ago, to actually have to filibuster in order to slow down or block legislation. And he makes an excellent point. 

The way the Senate cloture rule (which is the filibuster rule) works today, is that the Majority Leader (in this case Harry Reid) brings legislation or executive nominees to the floor that Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration want to pass and confirm. And Leader Reid generally has a majority to pass that legislation or confirm those nominees. But without first consulting with the Minority Leader (in this case Mitch McConnell) or the Ranking Republican on whatever the committee that has jurisdiction over that legislation. 

Then what the Minority Leader (in this case Mitch McConnell) does, since he has 47-100 members of the Senate, is try to line up at least 41 of his own members to block the legislation that Senate Republicans haven't even been consulted on, to block the legislation or nominee from being passed or confirmed. And the exact same thing happened in the 2000s when there were 2 Republican Senate's and George W. Bush was President and Tom Daschle and then later Harry Reid was the Senate Minority Leader. 

What Leader Reid wants to do and this won't happen at least until the next Congress is sworn in after the New Year, is pass a rule that says if you want to block legislation, you have to actually hold the floor and filibuster about the bill that you want to block. As soon as you give up the floor and there aren't at least 41 other members on the Senate floor, the Majority Leader could then move to pass the bill and just need 50 votes, plus the Vice President, to pass the legislation. 

This would be the filibuster rule regardless of whose in the majority and whose in the minority and whoever the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are. 

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Manifest Media Networks: Malcolm X- Interview at UC Berkeley: Oct. 11th, 1963

Source:Manifest Media Networks- Minister Malcolm X, at California Berkeley, in 1963.
Source:The Daily Press

"Malcolm X - interview at UC Berkeley. Check out more at:Black University"

I saw this interview of Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X on CSPAN this year and decided to write about it. He was being interviewed by a California Berkeley professor there in 1963. Berkeley one of the few major universities back in the early 1960s where radical were seemed mainstream, including ethno and racial Nationalists.

Source:C-SPAN- Minister Malcolm X, being interviewed at Berkeley in 1963. 
Part of Malcolm X's message was about the right to self-defense. Which is in the U.S. Constitution, that Americans have. Which means that if you are under attacked, you have the constitutional right to defend yourself to your best ability to prevent your attacker from hurting, or destroying you. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to believe in. The problem with this philosophy is that it was sort of short-term and a good thing for African-Americans is that more of them didn't take this message to heart and I say that for this reason.

Martin L. King, was a pacifist all around. At least when it came to civil rights and part of that was because Dr. King thought long-term. He was a visionary in the civil rights struggle and understood the power of the media and that African-Americans were undermanned in this struggle as far as their own population. And that they needed the support of non-African-Americans to advance this cause. And that if they were seen as dangerous or violent in this struggle, it would be harder for them to gain additional support.

I believe that part of Malcolm X's message rose from frustration as far as how Africans were treated in America. And that African-Americans had took it too long and that it was time to rise up and fight back. He was right that it was time to rise up and to fight back. Which is what Dr. King believed in as well. But they just had different approaches in how to fight back, Dr. King's approach was more about using the power of media and message. Malcolm had that as well, but it also came with the right to physical self-defense. 

Friday, November 23, 2012

NFL Network: John Riggins: A Football Life

Source:NFL Network- the Washington Diesel.

Source:The Daily Press 

"John 'The Diesel' Riggins was fearless on the field and a fun-loving showman off it. He knew the power of his talents and achieved the ultimate prize with a Lombardi Trophy and Super Bowl MVP title.

'John Riggins: A Football Life' tells the untold story of a small-town Kansas farm kid’s rise from the unknown to being Super Bowl champion to Hall of Famer to actor following his retirement.

John Riggins was truly one of a kind. Known by Redskins fans simply as “Riggo” or “The Diesel,” the man was pure magic on the field." 

I guess I'm very lucky as a Redskins fan, because my first year as a Redskin fan and I'm not even seven years old, yet a couple months away from that, was in 1982 the year the Washington Redskins win their first Super Bowl. 

I still remember John Riggins touchdown run like I saw it yesterday. Him breaking through that hole, that was designed on purpose to have one free Miami Dolphin defender, who was a safety a guy named Don MacNeil, who may have weighed 200 pounds back then. It was designed this way because Redskins OL coach Joe Bugel tolled JR: "Look, there's going to be one free Dolphin defender who'll have a clean shot at you, but there isn't a DB in football that can tackle you by themselves." 

JR was called the Diesel for a reason, because thats the type of power he had. I think a better comparison would be a horse. Big, tall and strong, who could run like a horse. He would run through you or he could run by you. You try to tackle him, you have a better shot at hurting yourself.

When you think of John Riggins athletically, just don't think of the Super Bowl champion or the Super Bowl MVP or the Hall of Famer or even all of the records he held at least one point. Think of the athlete, think of the 18 year old who at the time was already 6'2  220 pounds, who was the Kansas state track champion in high school. Think of a fullback with tailback speed, who could out run WR's and DB's. And also think of JR from the perspective of a defender: "Even if I do catch this guy, if he's not at full speed, how am I supposed to bring him down. Maybe I should practice by trying to tackle a horse." 

A couple examples of JR's greatness, a regular season game against the Dallas Cowboys in December 1979. The winner of the game wins the NFC East and goes to the playoffs. It was the third or fourth quarter, QB Joe Theisman calls a trap play or a run up the middle. The problem is that JR out ran his OL and turns the play into a sweep and bounces outside and takes the play for a sixty yard touchdown run. No Cowboy in sight trying to catch him until the end when a little Cowboy DB makes light stab at him.

Jim Brown is the best RB of all-time, the power back of all time as well, but JR is right behind JB as the best power back of all-time. And if you are number two to JB in anything when it comes to football, you are a Hall of Famer. The only thing was that JR was under utilized for probably half of his career. The New York Jets were awful in the early and mid 1970s and the Redskins tried to make JR a FB in his first two seasons in Washington. So my question would be had JR been a full-time TB for his entire career, how great would he have been.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Leathered Life: Chrissie- In Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie.

Source:The Daily Press

“Leathered Life Chrissie in Leather Pants” 

“Chrissie… great leather girl.” 

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie

From Leathered Life

"Leathered Life Oldies: Chrissie in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life. The photo was from a Leathered Life video, which has since been blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Source:Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life. 
Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women when they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.

November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky: 'Neoliberalism vs Democracy'

Source:November Revolution Men- Professor Noam Chomsky talking about what he and other leftists call neoliberalism.
"Chomsky and other intellectuals on neo-liberalism and corporativism."

The Frenchman who spoke in this video who was talking about liberalism, said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the Adam Smith's and other Liberals from his era, would be rolling in their graves about what's and who is supposed to pass as liberalism and Liberals today. So let's talk about what's supposed to pass as liberalism and the people who are supposed to be as Liberals today and then I'll get into who Liberals really are and liberalism actually is. 

To put it simply, everyone and everything on the left, from the center-left, to left-wing, to far-left, even the far-left in Europe and the rest of the developed world outside of America, is supposed to pass as liberalism and people who support those political factions, are supposed to be the Liberals today. At least according to the so-called mainstream media in America, as well as American pop culture, not to the mention the closeted Socialists in America who still call themselves Liberals, because being outed as a leftist, scares the hell out of them. 

It's not just the so-called Progressives (whether they're actually progressive or not) who get called Liberals today or self-describe that way(even if they're actually not that progressive) but Democratic Socialists and Communists as well, people who either want social democracy in America or think communism is the way to go and that it's not just capitalism that needs to be replaced, but democracy and even individual rights, checks and balances, etc.  

To put it more simply and lightly, if you are an antiestablishment, hipster, revolutionary, who sort of talks like you just woke up and found out that it's no longer 1971 and it's now 2012, but you still have the same politics, lifestyle, culture, language, etc, and you are still trying to take down the man (meaning the establishment) and replace it with some type of socialist system, the mainstream media would call you a Liberal today. Even if you don't and that you weren't even called a Liberal 40 years ago, but a leftist instead.  

The fact is this is what liberalism really is: 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[12][13]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[14] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights.[15] While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building." 

From Wikipedia 

The reason why we have terms like Classical Liberal and Modern Liberal, I think a lot of that has to do with the Cold War. Before communism became a force in the Western World, it if anything was considered cool (or swell) to be a Socialist and perhaps even Communist, especially during the Great Depression in the 1930s, because Socialists and Communists then were seen as people who would look after working people and defend their rights to exist and have a quality life. 

The Cold War changed Americans views of socialism and communism, to the point thanks to U.S. Government and private right-wing propaganda, Socialists and Communists were then during the Cold War, seen as Un-American and people who wanted to take down the American form of government and way of life and replace it with some type of socialist state and system.  

Socialists have always been around in America, it's just that Cold War sort of forced them to go underground politically and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, but still have their socialist philosophy, ideas, and antiestablishment, hipster language. They went underground politically in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc, a certain extent today of leftists (who are called Socialists in the real world) who are terrified of people finding out they are Socialists. You would think socialism is some disease for them that they don't want touching them. Even though they're proud to publicly express their socialist beliefs, values, and rhetoric.

But for me, political philosophies and values don't change, people do. Liberalism is about individuals and defending their individual rights. Not always looking to expand the government, so the government can do the most possible for the people and people would have to do the least for themselves. 

To go back to my original point about liberalism, the first Liberals would be rolling in their graves if they could see how so-called Modern Liberals have tried to hijack their great philosophy and tried to turn it in the opposite of what it's always been, which is about the individual, not the state.

Andy Greenshaw: 'Why We Should Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'

Source:Andy Greenshaw- Since when does the Left (especially the Far-Left) care about the budget deficit and national debt.

"I couldn’t agree more with Fareed Zakaria’s latest article in the Washington Post about the Bush Tax Cuts.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that the massive U.S. budget deficit looms as one of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s economy.  And Congress has the opportunity to immediately eliminate a fourth of that deficit by doing nothing.

The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year, which will inevitably cut about $300 billion from the U.S. budget deficit.  These massive tax cuts – passed in 2001 and 2003 – lowered taxes for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans." 

"It’s been clear for a while that President Obama has all the leverage in the tax debate. Now it’s clear the Republicans know it.

On Friday, Obama met with congressional leaders for the first time since his reelection. The subject of discussion was how to handle the tax hikes and automatic spending cuts set to take effect on January 1. House Speaker John Boehner came with a proposal: Instead of racing to craft an alternative package before the new year, Boehner suggested, why not just pass a bill preserving the status quo for six more months, giving everybody a chance to work out a deal? But nobody expects Obama to go for it, unless Republicans agree to a deal on taxes that's largely to Obama’s liking. A senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill thinks he sees a game of Texas hold 'em underway, with Obama winning... 

This idea of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class at least in the short-term, would be a disaster. 

Pre-2001 people in the bottom tax rate making up to I believe 75K$ a year, paid 15% in income taxes, after the Bush tax cuts and there were some actual good provisions in it, lower middle class and middle class workers were paying 10% in Federal income taxes, they've seen a 50% tax cut over ten years, so if you were a plumber or construction worker making 50K$ a year back in 2000, you paid, 7,500K$ a year in income taxes. After 2001 someone with the same income was now paying 5,000K$ a year in income taxes. They saw a 2,500K$ reduction in income taxes and with how badly the economy has done the last. 

Ten years with a lot of people in that income bracket out-of-work or working less then they would prefer or could even afford. That extra 2,500K$ a year could be the difference in someone making their car payments or mortgage payments, putting money away for their kids. College education and not being able to do that because the Federal Government is taking an extra 2,500K$ a year in taxes.

So raising or increasing taxes on people who can't afford it right now, is bad for the economy and deficit reduction. Because without a strong economy, with strong economic and job growth, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control. Because we'll never generate the revenue needed as a country to accomplish that. 

House Republicans will never go along with the 250K$ cutoff point to where we increase taxes in this Congress or in the next Congress, even if the Democratic Senate were to pass that. And going over to the fiscal cliff to try to prove me and others wrong on this, is not the way to find out, we need to avoid that. 

We need to come up with a balanced approach that will work that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to that that won't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hit right now and with how Speaker Boehner is talking right now, we can do this.

At some point whether it's in this Congress or not, Speaker Boehner will go along with something like a millionaires tax. As long as its used to pay down the debt and deficit and comes with serious budget cuts as well and thats what we need, new revenue and budget cuts that we can do, without hurting people who can't afford it and more importantly hurting the economy. 

We can get the debt and deficit under control by making entitlements stronger, as well as the broader safety net stronger and more affordable and reforming them in a way where we can actually put these people to work and get them off of public assistance all together. And have these people paying taxes because they can afford it and we can do more with the defense budget and get past a cold war strategy and more ready for the 21st Century, but middle class tax hikes doesn't get us there.

As the President says we need a balanced approach that works and doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it and actually solves the problems in front of us and something like a millionaires tax and entitlement reform and more savings in defense. Will get us there and then of course something to spark new economic growth will get the job done but you. Don't increases taxes on people that you want to spend money, if you are trying to spark new economic growth.

Friday, November 16, 2012

VOA News: 'US Pushes Syrian Kurds to Join Rebellion'

Source:VOA News- U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

"As the Obama administration pushes to solidify Syria's political opposition, it also is working to improve ties between Syrian Kurds and groups battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. VOA's Scott Stearns has more." 

From VOA News 

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. It is targeted and primary audience is non-American.

VOA was established in 1942,[7] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[8] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[9] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. As of 2022, VOA has a weekly worldwide audience of approximately 326 million (up from 236.6 million in 2016) and employs 961 staff with annual budget of $252 million.[10][11]

Voice of America is seen by many listeners as having a positive impact while others see it as American propaganda; it also serves US diplomacy" 

From Wikipedia

This would make the Syrian opposition even more united.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

FDR Presidential Library: 'We Work Again (1937)'

Source:Film Preservation- from the 1937 film We Work Again.

“We Work Again (1937)
Production Co.: U.S. Works Progress Administration. Transfer Note: Copied from a 35mm positive preprint preserved by the National Archives and Records Administration. Running Time: 15 minutes.

Priceless historical footage can be “lost” within unlikely films. We Work Again, a Depression-era documentary on African American reemployment, also includes a forgotten record of the first professional play staged by Orson Welles.

It had long been assumed that no sound or moving images survived from Welles’s legendary “Voodoo Macbeth,” his 1936 Harlem stage production of Shakespeare’s play, set in Haiti with an African American cast. As one of Welles’s many biographers lamented in 1996, “Nothing remains but still photographs and memories.” However, We Work Again turns out to include the…

“We Work Again – FDR Presidential Library 1937 – Video 352 – From IMDB. In the 1930s, the economic depression has been especially hard on African-American families and communities. But the federal government’s Works Progress Administration now provides many new opportunities for employment and advancement. Both skilled and unskilled laborers are employed in many public works projects. Others find work in a wide range of fields, including education, medicine, and even music and the performing arts. Written by Snow Leopard.” 

Source:Public Resource- from the 1937 film We Work Again.

From Public Resource  

I believe this photo is from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. It’s about the domestic legacy of President Franklin Roosevelt, which of course is the New Deal.  

Source:FDR Library- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) 32nd President of the United States (1933-45)

If you are familiar with the Great Depression of the late 1920s and 1930s, you know that it was an economic hell for America: 20% unemployment rates, negative 10% economic growth rates, 1/2 Americans unemployed and living in poverty, homelessness and hunger became crisis’s in America, even in big cities and urban areas.

Even with the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt still wanted to get reelected in 1936 and managed to do that, because the economy started improving somewhat. But by 1937 we were still trying to recover from the crisis of the Great Depression and the FDR Administration needed something positive to show the voters. And I believe that’s what you see here which is really just a government propaganda film in favor of the New Deal. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

Professor Noam Chomsky: ‘On Liberalism, Freedom & Democracy’

Source:AZ Quotes- Professor Noam Chomsky talking about capitalism and what he calls libertarian socialism.

“I think it is useful to set up as a framework for discussion four somewhat idealized positions with regard to the role of the state in an advanced industrial society. I want to call these positions: (1) classical liberal, (2) libertarian socialist, (3) state socialist, (4) state capitalist, and I want to consider each in turn. Also, I’d like to make clear my own point of view in advance, so that you can evaluate and judge what I am saying. I think that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through to anarchism, I think that these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.

In contrast, it seems to me that the ideology of state socialism, i.e. what has become of Bolshevism, and that of state capitalism, the modern welfare state, these of course are dominant in the industrial societies, but I believe that they are regressive and highly inadequate social theories, and a large number of our really fundamental problems stem from a kind of incompatibility and inappropriateness of these social forms to a modern industrial society.

Let me consider these four points of reference in sequence, beginning with the classical liberal point of view.”

From Noam Chomsky 

“Chomsky on Classical Liberalism, Freedom, & Democracy. Edited clips with Magee, Foucault, and others.” 

Source:Understanding Power- Professor Noam Chomsky I believe being interviewed by PBS News anchor Bill Moyers in the late 1980s. But I don't know for sure.

From Understanding Power 

I have a lot of respect for professor Noam Chomsky’s honesty and being able to communicate exactly where he is politically and being able to articulate what he thinks about other political ideologies. Noam Chomsky is an admitted Libertarian Socialist and very honest about that. Which means he’s like a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist on economic and foreign policy.But Noam Chomksy is a Liberal-Libertarian on social issues. So we probably agree on most social issues.

My issue with professor Chomsky has to do with the fact that he sort of has this “you are either with me, or you are selfish and believe in selfishness and inequality. And that poor people should be kept down and so-forth”. He’s somewhat exclusive with his politics, you either agree with him and share his politics completely, or you’re a bad person, or something. It’s not that you disagree with him, but that you are a bad person all together. Which I don’t have much respect for.

As far as libertarian socialism vs. liberalism, classical Liberalism, even: I believe he’s right for the most part. That people who are Liberals today, are not Social Democrats or even Progressives. But people who share my politics or are similar are actual Liberals instead. Where people who are called modern Liberals, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats.

Today’s so-called Progressives (who are actually Socialists or Social Democrats) who believe that the state, especially the Federal Government has a big role to play in taking care of the people and insuring economic equality and that they are somewhat liberal on social issues, depending on what type of leftist that they are, aren’t very liberal at all. Today’s leftists actually don’t like Liberals and liberalism, because they don’t believe in individuals and individual rights. But instead believe in the collective and collective rights, or what they would call welfare rights. Today’s leftists believe in the welfare state over the individual, which is why they’re not very liberal at all. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

Brookings Institution: Bruce Katz & Mark Muro: 'Brookings Podcast: Remaking Federalism and Renewing the Economy'

Source:Brooking Institution- Mark Muro.

"In this post-election season and with a fiscal cliff looming, states and metros have begun the work of meeting their many challenges. They're implementing game-changing initiatives to create jobs and restructure their economies for the long haul. The federal government needs to take notice and get on board, note Metropolitan Program policy experts Bruce Katz and Mark Muro as they urge a move for remaking our federalism and renewing the economy. Katz and Muro explain in this episode of @ Brookings.

Read their paper at:Brookings." 

Just to start off with: it's a great to hear a center-left institution like Brookings or any other center-left institution, making the case and arguing in favor of federalism. 

Progressives (who are center-left) always get stereotyped as big government, national government, do-gooder, know-it-alls, who think that there's a national government solution for everything in America. And that if anything, there's too much power with the states and localities, and even individuals, and that we need a bigger, more centralized government in this country. And for good reason, because people who call themselves Progressives (who are actually closeted Socialists or Social Democrats) are always arguing in favor of a bigger Federal Government, more Federal taxation, more Federal spending, more Federal regulations and prohibitions. 

But what Brice Katz and Mark Muro from Brookings are arguing here, is that there are real economic and fiscal challenges that America faces and the Federal Government can't simply solve all these problems itself, especially being buried in debt and deficits that it currently is. That we need to look at what the states and localities are doing, be more creative in how we try to deal with these economic issues. And if anything, get more power out of Washington and down to the states and localities.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Nancy Pelosi: 'Why I'm Running Again For House Democratic Leader'

Source:Nancy Pelosi- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announcing why she's running for Minority Leader again.

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi announces she will run again" 

From Nancy Pelosi

So let's see I have this straight: Nancy Pelosi is running for reelection as House Minority Leader because she believes that women need to continue to be empowered in America, in government and everywhere else. And somehow Leader Pelosi being a woman herself, (obviously) that her keeping this role as the highest ranking women in Congress (House or Senate) and in either party, would make it easier for this to happen. So what Leader Pelosi is essentially doing is making her candidacy for reelection about her gender. And thats hopefully not her best case for her being reelected, 

"Reelect me because I'm a woman" is not much of campaign theme and vision for the future of the House Democratic Caucus.  I could just see radical feminists freaking out about men (especially Caucasian men) running for office based on their gender. 

Gender, race, ethnicity, should never be any driving force for why someone should be elected or reelected to anything. It should always be about the individual and their qualifications, period. Because we're all individuals and we're all our own people, regardless of our gender, race, or ethnicity.

The New Republic: Chuck Thompson- ‘Go Ahead and Secede, Texas. I Dare You.’

Source: The New Republic- don’t mess with Texas. We’re armed and dangerous. We also ain’t too bright and don’t always know what we’re doing. LOL

“In the wake of news that more than 80,000 people have signed an online White House petition asking permission for Texas to leave the Union, a single grave concern has united the minds of Americans of all political colors: If the state secedes, where are we going to get our NFL-caliber wide receivers?

As a recent student not just of secession, but the traditionally Southern mindset that drives it in this country (similar petitions for Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina have all topped 20,000 signatures), let me be the first to say to the aggrieved liberal community: relax. No one is talking about building a Berlin Wall around the upside-down pistol grip part of Texas.

Texans may be stubborn, but they ain’t stupid. In the event of secession, mutually beneficial treaties would be drawn up between the United States and newly formed Texas Republic, ensuring both sides get what they need.” 

“Rick Perry on Texas’s right to secede from the US” 

Source:The Centrist Word- Hardball With Chris Matthews?

From The Centrist Word 

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas even seceding from the United States, who the hell needs them. (From my point of view) They need us so they can fund their own roads and for all that welfare insurance they get from taxpayers in wealthy states. So their people don’t starve and so their kids can go to school and so-forth.

I mean do we really need a Alabama and a Mississippi in the union, couldn’t we get by with just one of them, or how about they combine and become one state. And we would have on less ignorant state in the union.

And do we really need to Carolinas and two Virginia’s? I’m not looking for Virginia to leave the union, but do we need a Virginia and a West Virginia.

West Virginia, is not seceding. Even they know like the rest of the country that they need America more than America needs them. But South Carolina might be a different story and the idea of an African-American, not only being elected, but reelected President of the United States, is appalling to a certain percentage of South Carolinians. And they may leave the country, some of the nuts in that state.

My whole point about this is that the people in these states that are considering leaving the United States, good riddance, as far as I’m concern. And maybe they can move somewhere and start some new Confederate Republic like they tried in the 1860s. And even if these states were to secede, which will never happen because even these states have enough intelligent people in them to know better. People who were perhaps educated outside of these states, to understand that they need America more than we need them.

As much as Southern Neo-Confederates may bash the U.S. Government and public assistance, a lot of their people still need that just to get by. Which makes this whole discussion a little ridiculous, because this will never happen.

Texas, won’t leave the United States, they have the most uninsured people in the country per-capita. They need us again for the public assistance that they collect. America, needs Texas to become energy independent and get off of foreign oil. Which would be a boom for both our economy and foreign policy. But if these third-world American states in the Southeast want to take a hike, I’ll help them pack. And see how well they can do on their own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Associated Press: 'Nancy Pelosi to Announce Plans Wednesday'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) and her Democratic Leadership team.

"Speaking at a press conference to introduce new elected House Democrats, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she'll announce Wednesday whether she'll continue in her current position or step down." 

From the Associated Press

Even though Nancy Pelosi is 72 now, it's not her fault that Democrats lost the House in 2010. You can blame that on the bad economy, Democratic President, ObamaCare being very unpopular, etc. 

Could Democrats have picked up more than 7-8 seats that they did in 2012 to just put them back over 200, probably. But it was a very close presidential election and an election where the Republican Party should've not have only held the House, but probably won back the Senate as well. Had they not have ran some really bad candidates statewide in some swing states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Missouri, they probably would've won back the Senate, even with President Obama being reelected. 

For people who think that Nancy Pelosi is getting old and House Democrats need new leadership, I would ask you who would you replace her with. Who in the Democratic Caucus is as good and as effective leader, that can deal with a caucus that's ideologically as diverse, as Nancy Pelosi and who has accomplished as much as Leader Pelosi.

VOA News: 'Despite Political Divides, Syria's Kurds Want Autonomy'

Source:VOA News- with a piece about Syrian Kurdistan.

"Afrin is an old city of some 80,000 inhabitants nestled in the hills of northwestern Syria.
Henry Ridgwell reports for VOA that instead of showing the Syrian national flag, checkpoints in and around the city fly the yellow, red and green flag of Syria's Kurds." 

From VOA News

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. It is targeted and primary audience is non-American.

VOA was established in 1942,[7] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[8] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[9] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. As of 2022, VOA has a weekly worldwide audience of approximately 326 million (up from 236.6 million in 2016) and employs 961 staff with annual budget of $252 million.[10][11]

Voice of America is seen by many listeners as having a positive impact while others see it as American propaganda; it also serves US diplomacy." 

From VOA News

The future for the Kurdish people maybe a United Kurdistan, which would include parts of Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Minister Malcolm X: Project History

Source:Teaching History- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, perhaps meeting with a fellow minister.

Source:The Daily Press

“This site is dedicated to the study of the life and legacy of Malcolm X. Only one of three “initiatives” is publicly available (Columbia faculty, staff, and students may also access the site’s “multi-media study environment” section). “Oral histories,” “outreach,” and “Malcolm X biography project” are under construction. A chronology traces Malcolm’s life from his birth in May 1925 to his assassination in February 1965, with short entries on major events. “Government Documents” offers FBI files on Malcolm X—4,000 pages of surveillance reports—covering the period 1954 to 1964. A brief summary accompanies each report and the files can be searched by keyword. The site’s project journal, focusing on particular themes and issues, has seven articles on Malcolm X and eight weblog postings. Additionally, the site offers an e-seminar “Life after Death: Malcolm X and American Culture” by Columbia professor Dr. Manning Marble for a fee (available free to Columbia faculty, staff, and students). When this site is completed, it will be a good starting point for researching the ideas and life of Malcolm X.” 

“Malcolm X Video Project (history)”

Source: Bria Parks- I can't say that I disagree with this photo. I mean I could, but then I would be lying and I don't think you want that.

I don’t believe Malcolm X was a racist at least at the point when he died. And I don’t believe he was a segregationist, meaning that people of different races should never interact with each other. But he was a separatist. Someone who did believe that integration wasn’t the magic bullet to the problems of African-Americans. He believed that this community should be empowered and even empowered themselves to be able to handle their own problems and issues and stand up for their rights. And not be put down by racist Caucasians, or anyone else.

And the African-Americans should stand up for their constitutional rights and not expect that others will give them to them or give them anything else. As well as treating people as people and not members of groups. But that he believed in empowering African-Americans to be able to handle their own affairs. Because this was his community, and not expecting others to empower them, or be dependent on government and others who are already independent to take care of them for them. Malcolm X’s message was truly about African-American freedom. Not some violent revolution.

Unlike Fidel Castro, who was a Marxist and someone who believed the central state should be in complete control and that the state should be responsible for everyone’s well-being, Malcolm X was a true freedom fighter. Someone who wanted to empower an entire community of Americans to take charge and complete responsibility over their own lives. Today’s Conservatives and Libertarians, should actually at least respect Minister Malcolm and not put him down as some racist thug. Because he was someone who truly believed in individual freedom and not government dependence for his community.

ABC News: This Week: 'Patty Murray, Saxby Chambliss 'This Week' Interview: David Petraeus Scandal, Barack Obama's Budget Battle'

Source:ABC News- left to right: U.S. Senator Patty Murray (Democrat, Washington State) & U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (Republican, Georgia) 

"Two key senators on David Petraeus' resignation and the upcoming "fiscal cliff" negotiations." 

From ABC News

Here's a solution for the fiscal cliff and the economy: savings in defense, entitlements, tax reform. But done in a way that doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it. Which means putting in something like a millionaires tax where anyone making a million dollars or more, would pay the same tax rate that they are paying today, but every dollar over a million dollars, their taxes would go up and those savings would go towards deficit reduction. should be part of this. 

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy