Monday, February 29, 2016

The Hill: Bill Press: Who's The Real Liberal- Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Source:The Hill- left to right: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) & Hillary R. Clinton.
Source:The New Democrat

You want to talk about European social democracy and Far-Left socialist politics in America, or do you want to talk about Center-Left pragmatic progressive and liberal politics in America? If you want democratic socialism and social democracy, Bernie Sanders other than Representative Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, hands down is the most socialist major party candidate for president ever. You can’t out socialist and socialist especially if you’re not a Socialist, which Hillary Clinton obviously isn’t. But if you want to talk about the American Center-Left which in Europe would the Center-Right and perhaps even further right like in Germany with the Free Liberal Democrats, Hillary Clinton hands down is the real and only Progressive and in the presidential race.

This is the danger with lumping in everything on the Left into one political faction and calling everybody the same thing. Communists aren’t Liberals and neither are Democratic Socialists. Liberals are people who believe in equal opportunity, rights and justice for all and individual freedom for all based on the liberal values I just mentioned. Not a big government big enough to manage people’s lives for them. Bernie Sanders and other Socialists go much further than that and say that individual freedom and rights are not enough. And believe in welfare rights based around a big centralized welfare state and that people have a right to essentially to not be poor and be taken care of with their money by government.

So of course Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders, because she’s not a Socialist. The test to see who is more progressive than the other is not this inside the beltway game about whose the furthest left. But who has stronger progressive values. Who has a better record in seeing that those values become law and come into being. Not whose going to tax and spend the most, but whose going to accomplish the policy objectives that Progressives believe in. And again hands down and even though Hillary Clinton’s only service in Congress was her eight years in the Senate which is less than a third of Bernie’s time in Congress and Bernie is in his 26th year in Congress and served in the House before the Senate, Hillary has a better record of accomplishing progressive objectives. Which is why she has so many more endorsements from actual Progressive Democrats. Like from House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn and I could go on.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Slate: Issac Chotiner- 'Nightmare Scenarios for the Supreme Court'

Source:Slate Magazine- "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the U.S. Capitol, Dec. 15, 2015 in Washington, D.C." From Slate Magazine.
Source:The New Democrat 

"In light of the coming battle in the Senate over Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, I called Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an expert on the workings of Congress, and the co-author of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism.

We discussed the future of the Supreme Court, the different types of obstructionism practiced by Republicans and Democrats, and the nightmare scenarios (another court packing!) that could be in our future. The conversation has been edited and condensed.

Isaac Chotiner: Is the Republican demand that the next president, rather than Obama, appoint a replacement for Scalia really that different from other forms of obstruction we have seen from both parties?" 

"President Obama responds to Senate Republicans' claims that there will be no confirmation hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. CNN's Michelle Kosinski reports." 

Source:CNN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From CNN

I would love to say I’m even surprised to see Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Chairman Chuck Grassley and their flat-out obstructionism when to comes to filling Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I’m not, not even mildly so. I would be lying to the point that I was claiming I was Jesus, Moses and Karl Marx, all in the same person if I said I was surprised by the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism when it comes to President Obama’s appointments or when it comes to policy. I mean, it started in the early days of 111th Congress when Barack Obama just became President and then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a speech at I believe the Heritage Foundation and said his number one priority was to see that Barack Obama was a one term President.

But having said that lets get to the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism and again in the Senate where it started in 2009. And now it looks like the Republican Party is on a duel suicide trip with Donald Trump as their presumed presidential nominee and the Senate Republicans going into the spring and summer in a very hot and humid Washington (assuming this is a normal year) saying no to any Supreme Court nominee in 2016. Even if that person is one of their current colleagues in the Senate, or in their party like with Governor Brian Sandoval, who is a popular moderate Governor of Nevada. Who looks like a Bernie Sanders Far-Lefty compared with the Tea Party and the Far-Right in the GOP right now. But hardly any Liberal let alone a Bernie Sanders Socialist. Because the Senate GOP says that the President is a lame duck even though he has eleven months left on his current term.

I remember the 2012 presidential election. I voted and remember President Obama getting reelected overwhelmingly by five-million votes in the popular vote and roughly 320 votes in the Electoral College. I also remember my social studies classes in high school and remembering that the President of the United States serves four-year terms and no more than two. So this idea the President is a lame duck when he still has a year left on his second term just doesn’t hold. 

Imagine a baseball player singing a four-year contract and going into the spring training of his fourth year with his team and he says: "You know what, three years is enough. I’m not going to resign with you next year anyway. I’m just going to take the fourth year off. And oh by the way you have to pay me, because I signed a four-year contract." Even though the player is healthy. How would the general manager of the club react? He would probably tell the player: "You better show up and play, or you’re not going to get paid."

And as far as presidential Supreme Court appointments not getting voted on in an election year: Anthony Kennedy now Justice Kennedy was approved in 1988 by a Democratic Senate with a solid vote. Democratic Justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Republican Clarence Thomas in 1991. They were as far apart ideologically and had as little in common politically as country music fans have with hip-hop fans. And yet the Democratic Senate approved the Thomas appointment to replace Justice Marshall with a handful of Democratic Senators voting for Thomas. Which is what President Bush and the Senate Republican Leadership had to have to get Clarence Thomas through. There is no precedent for Senate Republican to sit on their asses for a year and not act on President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment. Which should be available by the early spring.

On a lighter note: imagine what the Republican Party in Washington looks like in lets say June and July. Donald Trump is their overwhelming nominee for president: the Joe McCarthy/Pat Buchanan of the Baby Boom Generation. A man claiming that Muslins don’t legally get Freedom of Religion protections and Mosques are not houses of worship. Who says he can deport eleven-million Latinos with the stroke of a pen. Who says Mexico will pay for the wall on the American-Mexican border. That women are property and that Americans don’t have right to speak out against him and I could go on, but it could get worst. And I don’t want to get stuck with someone future mental health bills, because they became depressed after reading this about The Donald. But it just gets worst, because now the GOP has The Donald and a Republican Senate sitting on their asses over a more than qualified Supreme Court nominee who got 90 plus votes to serve on the lower court.

If you’re familiar with Washington in the summer you know that it’s a hot humid place. Where we only get rain generally in between heat waves and our summers tend to start in May and go through September and sometimes even October. But with all the hot air that we simply get from Mother Nature, is a warm day at the North Pole compared with all the heat and humidity that comes from Congress alone. Especially in the Senate with the cloture rule where Senators at any time can speak until they have to go to the bathroom or fall asleep standing up. 

It’s going to be a hellish summer for the GOP and bad enough if all they have is an anti-civil liberties, anti-free speech, anti-immigrant and anti-Latino and Muslim fascist as their presidential nominee. How they deal with that plus with their twenty-four Senate seats that are up for reelection with perhaps as many as half of them in play and half of those favored to go to the Democrats. And they have to run with The Donald and try to defend in Democratic and swing states their leadership’s obstructionism over a clearly qualified Supreme Court nominee to their constituents. This will be a year to remember and forget for the GOP.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

KQED: Gabe Meline- Kim Novak Opens Up: ‘I Think I’m Appreciated More Now’

Source:KQED- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, from 1958.
Source:The Daily Review 

"There's a line spoken by Kim Novak in the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece Vertigo that every devotee of the film knows by heart: “If I let you change me, will that do it? If I do what you tell me, will you love me?”

In reality, the plea was all too personal for Novak, the platinum blonde who during a string of hit films in the 1950s and '60s endured Hollywood's constant makeovers: to her hair, her clothes, her figure. She became, to critics and audiences, a sex symbol -- and little more." 

From KQED 

"XXII. Prague International Film Festival and Č presents interview with actress and artist Kim Novak." 

Source:AVC-CVUT- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, at the Prague International Film Festival.


This is a good interview from Gabe Meline of Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak and I mean that in the most positive sense. Yes, she was not just hot in Hollywood, but physically hot in general. Great body and yet so adorable at the same time that she generally came off as 10-15 years younger than she actually was, if not even younger than that.

But Kim was so real and convincing as an actress. I think that is what made her great and again as I said before had her career not have been over for the most part by the late 1960s and I think we’re talking about one of the greatest actress’s ever. Same class as Susan Hayward, Rita Hayworth, Lauren Bacall, Lana Turner, Liz Taylor and many others. She was really that great in the 1950s and 1960s.

If you watch the movie Vertigo with Alfred Hitchcock, Madeline is Kim Novak. Either as the Hollywood bomb shell blonde or as the red-hot Hollywood bomb shell. A woman who looks like a goddess on the outside. Whose 5’6 and hot with a great body, but also as cute as a baby with a sexy voice. But on the inside she was a like a sixteen year old girl who wants the hottest guy in high school, but not ready to make a move, because she doesn’t think she’s good enough for him. Or thinks he won’t like her at all.

As great as Kim was she always had this self-confidence issue that wasn’t that different from Marilyn Monroe, but she was smart enough not to get involved in drugs and abuse alcohol. Especially together which would the slow way to commit suicide.

Madeline from Vertigo, is Kim Novak. This gorgeous baby-faced blonde with the great body and the sexy Czech-Slavic curves. Who is never sure of herself and just wants someone to love her for who she is and just love her. Who is involved with a guy and his fantasy about who she should be. And she goes out-her-way to try to be that person for him.

If you like Alfred Hitchcock and you like Kim Novak, you’ll love Vertigo. The perfect Hitchcock movie with the hot sexy adorable blonde with a great suspense/thriller and humor all in the same movie. Like all great Hitchcock movies. And you see the real Kim Novak in it. As a goddess on the outside that every straight guy with eyes whose not blind should love, but who is very vulnerable on the inside. Even though she doesn’t has any real reason to be.

Friday, February 19, 2016

New America Weekly: Lara Burt: 'TANF &Teachers- How Current Policies Are Keeping Single Mothers Down & Out of School'

Source:New America Foundation- New mother & her baby.
Source: The New Democrat 

"Imagine a poor single mother today raising two children on her own and working at least 20 hours per week at a low-wage job without benefits. Then imagine that she must face the choice between remaining eligible for the restricted support she receives from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or pursuing her aspirations for higher education.

The goal of the TANF program is ostensibly to help participants successfully transition to self-sufficiency. However, by placing barriers in the way of single mothers who wish to go to school through the program's strict “work first” policy, TANF undermines their ability to achieve this goal. As a result, poor parents in general and single mothers and their children in particular are suffering needlessly.

Roughly 40 percent of families headed by single-mothers are poor. In fact, these households are more likely than any other demographic group to fall below the poverty line. There are, of course, many factors that come together to make this unfortunate reality, but this disparity can be explained at least in part by a weak social-safety net, inadequate childcare, and lack of higher education opportunities." 

It’s not that TANF (or the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) hasn’t succeeded, because it has. Take away the Great Recession and we’re not looking at a twenty-percent poverty rate today, because under TANF low-income parents are able to go back to school and get skills so they can get good jobs. We were at around ten-percent poverty in the late 1990s. Economic booms only apply to people with good skills who are prepared and qualified for good jobs. And are even leaving unemployment, or moving up for a better job.

And of course opponents of the bill from people on the Libertarian-Right who believe that government should do nothing to help people in poverty, to people on the Social Democratic-Left, who believe that self-reliance shouldn’t be the goal here and want bigger government cash payments instead, will say that the 1990s economic boom was the reason for the low poverty. But low-income adults especially need to have good skills in order to have good jobs.

TANF, was a great 1990s Welfare to Work and anti-poverty program. I believe the best government anti-poverty program ever created, because it encourages work and education over government dependence. And again without the two recessions of the 2000s TANF would have worked very well again, because President Bush supported it and even had Democratic support for it in Congress. 

What we need now is a Welfare to Work program that builds off of TANF. And says if you’re on Welfare, you’re going to work as soon as possible and that means taking at least one of the first jobs that you’re qualified for. But while these folks are going to work, they're able to keep all of their public assistance, including their Welfare checks up to the point that they can support themselves on their own and no longer need public assistance at all to support themselves and their families.Which is what's known as subsidized employment which encourages work over being homebody.

In exchange government will help you finish and further your education. As well as childcare assistance for your kids. So low-income low-skilled single-parents, have the time and the money to get a good education and to work. But not only will these new workers be going back to school as they’re entering the workforce, but they’ll continue to collect their public assistance benefits that they’re eligible for as low-income workers. Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Assistance, and even Welfare, etc.

So we should be investing more and going further with TANF, perhaps better known as Welfare to Work. Which would be a great investment in our low-income communities, but a great investment in our economy. Because we would be moving people off of public assistance all together with all the new educated workers we would be producing. And create a larger middle class and a smaller poverty class. Creating purchasing power for millions of new Americans. Money they would spend and invest in the economy. Money they could put back in their communities instead of abandoning them.

Welfare to Work, shouldn’t be about Welfare to fast food, or retail, or janitorial work, or other low-income, low-skilled jobs that don’t come with benefits after these new workers lose their childcare assistance and everything else they were getting from public assistance. But instead Welfare to the middle class and economic freedom. Which only comes through quality education and economic development.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Los Angeles Times: Patrick Kevin Day- Kim Novak- Hollywood Star Walk

Source:Los Angeles Times- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak I believe from Pushover (1954) film.
Source:The Daily Review

When I think of pure beauty, grace, class, realism, adorableness, Kim Novak is not the only actress I think of, but she’s certainly one of my favorites. I don’t know of another actress who was that hot, baby-faced adorable and that well-built and that real. A hot 5’6 women with a great body and whose also baby-faced adorable, who played all of her roles as if she’s playing herself. If you judge an actress by how real and believable their character is, meaning do the you believe the actress playing the women or not, that alone would make Kim Novak not just one of the best actress’s of her generation that includes Angie Dickinson, Sophia Loren, Dyan Cannon, Liz Taylor and many others, Grace Kelly, but one of the best actress’s of all-time.

And I believe what makes Kim even better is that the women that she played most of the time tended to be very different from who she is in real-life. Kim, was somewhat shy and lacking in self-confidence and never quite sure of herself. Which was perfect for her in Vertigo where she plays Madeline who is very similar in personality. But look at The Man With The Golden Arm with Frank Sinatra and she’s playing the cool always sure of herself character. Whose trying to save a drug addict and gambler played by Sinatra, from himself. Which is my point about Kim that she was so good at playing her characters even people who were very different from herself. But played them so well as if she was playing herself.

I’m not saying Kim Novak is Lauren Bacall, or Liz Taylor, Rita Hayworth, Susan Hayward, but probably in the next group, or the one right after that if not the second one. Because she sort of burned out by the late 1960s and attempted a few comebacks after that without achieving the great roles that she use to have. Had she still been doing well in Hollywood in the 1970s and 1980s, maybe we’re talking about an actress who belongs in the first group of greatest actress’s of all-time. But for her time in the 1950s through the mid 1960s she was one of the best and best looking in Hollywood. And landed a lot of great movies and roles because of that. And someone who clearly belongs in the Hollywood Hall of Fame, or the equivalent of that.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

The Washington Post: Ishaan Tharoor- 'U.S. Democrats Are Embracing The Term Liberal'

Source:The Washington Post- "Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wait for his arrival in downtown on Tuesday in Concord, N.H." From The Washington Post

Source:The New Democrat 

"According to a new Pew poll, more Democratic voters are identifying with the label "liberal," marking a discernible upward trend.

"In 2015, more Democratic voters identified as liberals (42%) than as moderates (38%) or conservatives (17%)," reported the Pew Research Center. White Democrats, millennials and those with postgraduate degrees in particular characterized their political views as "liberal." You can see the steady growth of self-declared liberals within Democratic ranks in this chart below." 

Thanks to the mainstream media and what a lot of Americans have been taught growing up, the words liberals and liberalism have been associated with left and leftism. And of course a lot of leftists in America (democratic and otherwise) are closeted Socialists because thanks to the Cold War, Socialists and Communists were treated like rapists or terrorists. And no decent American who cared about their professional reputations, want to be associated with Socialist or Communist when it came to their political philosophy. So they self-described their politics as liberal or progressive. 

What the rest of the developed world calls Socialists or Social Democrats, Americans tend to call those folks Liberals. I think that's changing now as more Americans especially younger Americans are now learning about liberalism and liberal democracy, as well as socialism and social democracy and realizing that those two political philosophies are actually very different from each other. 

According to the mainstream definition or pop culture definition of Liberal, Liberals are supposed to be antiestablishment, defenders of the supposed oppress (meaning women and minorities) and always wanting more government and more taxes. 

The supposed view of a big governmentalist is someone who believes in more government, or a liberal amount of government, meaning a lot of government. And it's the job of government take care of people and protect people, even at times for themselves. That the more government you have, the more people will taken care and the less that they'll have to do for themselves.  

But if you actually want to know what liberalism actually is what Liberals actually believe not just in America, but in Europe as well where Liberals are considered center-right and liberalism is considered to be a center-right political philosophy: 

"Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)" 

From Wikipedia 

But to go to today's politics someone like Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) who is the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress (but not the only Socialist in Congress) Senator Sanders self-describes his own politics as a Democratic Socialist as someone who believes in democratic socialism or social democracy, a European Center-Left Democrat, ideologically. 

Senator Sanders does this because he's one of the few Americans who actually knows that socialism and liberalism aren't the same things. But according to the mainstream media in America, Senator Sanders is the most liberal member of Congress, because he seems to believe in the most government and highest taxes. 

If you want a quick definition of Liberal, I'll give you one anyway: a Liberal believes in individual liberty. Liberals are defenders of liberty, not supporters of big government, because Liberals believe in liberal democracy, not socialism. Which is why Liberals are considered Center-Right in Europe and should have the classification in America as well. 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The Rubin Report: Nick Cohen- 'On The Regressive Left, Free Speech, Radical Islam'

Source:The Rubin Report- with Dave Rubin and Nick Cohen.

Source:The Daily Review

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Nick Cohen (journalist and author of "What's Left?") about regressive leftists, current issues surrounding free speech, the problem of radical Islam, and much more. 

Is the state of US news driving you crazy? Does the coverage of political news rarely seem “fair and balanced”? Serious discussions on US politics is vital to having a healthy democracy. No matter what political party you belong to, we need to be able to hear a variety of political perspectives." 

I’ll tell what I hope happens next for free speech in America which is probably going to sound very sarcastic and cynical and hopefully funny and informative like a good comedian. And then I’ll tell you what I think is going to happen.

What I would like to see happen is the generation that sees socialism and I’m sure other forms of collectivism, what I would like them to do is to grow up. Finally graduate from college and quit one of their three jobs so they can get the hell out of college with a degree that is hopefully worth at least half of what they’re paying for it, on their personal debt card. Start experiencing the real world with a job so they can start paying off their college debt that they’ll probably leave their grandkids to pay off. And realize that not everything that anyone says about anyone, including oversensitive minorities and Socialists of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, is pleasant and nice.

And then also realize they also live in a liberal democracy with a liberal guaranteed right to free speech. And that includes saying negative things about anyone that they choose to. 

Also realize we live in a very funny country and probably are the comedy capital of the world and come from a long line of sarcastic smart asses. (I sure as hell do) And that not every joke that reflects some negative characteristic about someone or some different race of people from your own is bigoted. Generally it isn’t and someone with a good sense of humor will actually not only get the joke, like it and perhaps even wish they came up with it first. You’re actually doing someone a favor if you get them to laugh about themselves, because you’re actually giving them an opportunity at self-improvement.

So that is sort of my positive angle, or less cynical angle. But I got to tell you that the Millennial’s won’t be done with college at least the people who graduate on time until 2021-2022. So we’re looking at another 5-6 years of Starbucks and Red Bull junkies, protesting about someone wearing a Washington Redskins jersey on campus during Thanksgiving. Or Caucasian man dressing up as Santa Claus during Christmas, or Christmas being celebrated at all during Christmas instead of other religious holidays. Or protesting against Black Friday, because it’s not called Rainbow Friday. With the rest of country when they’re not laughing at these protests, wondering who did these kids have to sleep with to get into college. Or how many professors did their father’s pay off.

Young people especially just need to chill. Don’t drink the extra lathe or frappuccino, or give up that junk and the Red Bull to begin with and perhaps take up pot (where its legal) and relax. Let your brains settle down and even fully develop and with that might come with a sense of humor. And you’ll learn the difference between comedy, even comedy about culture and even lifestyle. And even comedy about ethnicity and race and how that is different from actual bigotry. Where you’re not making fun of characteristics of people and what they do, which is what comedy is. But literally making fun of people because of their complexion, or hair, how their nose is shaped, names, etc. And comedy when is done right regardless of the topic is funny. And bigotry is bigotry.

Friday, February 5, 2016

Fusion: Daniel Rivero- An O.J. Simpson Trial Refresher For 90s Kids

Source:The Daily Review

Just to give you a little background of myself, I was eighteen in June, 1994 and about a week out of high school after graduation vacationing with my parents in Delaware. So I guess technically I didn’t count as a kid then, because I was one of the youngest adults from Generation X. Actually, more than twenty-years later I still am. Which makes me feel a little younger now than I’m in my forties. My point being that I remember this case very well, because again as a young adult and having my first real job out of high school and actually interested in the 1994 NBA Finals that was interrupted by this bizarre case.

The O.J. Simpson case represents everything that is wrong with celebrity culture, celebrity news and the country’s obsession with it. We have Americans literally who can’t go to bed until every single text message that they have is responded to and call is returned. Or have checked every single celebrity news story online generally on their phone and have watched all of their so-called reality TV shows. The O.J. Simpson, was the start of the reality TV and celebrity news watch in this country. Where you would have networks dedicated to this, well stuff. (To keep it clean) NBC, breaks into NBC Sports that was covering the NBA Finals in 1994. Arguably the biggest event in sports that year. With NBC News, not to cover even a plane crash, or some terrorist explosion, but a car chase that happened to have a celebrity in it that was suspected of murder. We didn’t have that type of national coverage before 1994.

We had a twenty-four cable news network that dedicated all of their coverage each day during this trial not to coverage of the 1994 mid-term elections that saw House Republicans win the majority for the first time since 1952, or how would Democratic President Bill Clinton work with this new Republican Congress that controlled the House and Senate, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or what was going on in the Balkans with Europe and America, about to get involved there, but again this bizarre celebrity crime trial. That looked more like a Hollywood crime movie than a real-life murder trial. Pre-1994, CNN actually stood for Cable News Network. Before it was changed to the Celebrity News Network. (Ha, ha)

Of course we’ve always had celebrity news and celebrity news coverage and even tabloid news and I’m a big movie fan myself especially classic movies and like bios of my entertainers. But pre-1994 average Americans had lives outside of their celebrity news world and reality TV. They wouldn’t run to the nearest TV and to find out how juries ruled on cases, or skip work to follow murder cases. The O.J. Simpson case, must have been a boom for the brand new internet, that had only been around for a couple of years at this point and started becoming big and more universal in 1994 and the same with cell phones. All because one of the most famous sports/movie celebrities was on trial for murder.

And by the way we’re talking about a very interesting case here and I’m not denying that and denying that it should have been covered. But that is what Court-TV was for and what E is for and perhaps A&E and other entertainment networks. My point is that when you have hard news organizations like CNN and NBC News, dedicating all of their coverage essentially, or at least marathon sessions of it, you’re saying that important news is not real news is not as important, because it doesn’t help the bottom line as much, or that Americans are pretty stupid and have nothing better to do with their lives. Which is too many cases is very true. That news organizations are not so much reporting important hard news, but reporting on things that drives their ratings.

The O.J. Simpson trial, was a gift to Hollywood. They couldn’t have come up with a better soap opera or mini series on their best marijuana high, than what they got from O.J. Simpson, his star power, the people he was involved with and of course how he butchered two innocent people in the prime of their lives and then got away with it. At least in the short-term. Life has been hell for him as it should almost every moment since. But that is what you entertainment networks for to cover these stories. That is what cable TV, but not cable news is for. To cover cases that Americans who have too much time on their hands and not enough going on in their lives, who have the time to follow these stores will watch. And leave hard news organizations for covering real news.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Gil Troy: 'Moynihan's Moment- Daniel P. Moynihan's Fight Against Zionism is Racism'

Source:Gil Troy- talking about Daniel P. Moynihan.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Moynihan's Moment tells the previously untold story of America's fight--led by legendary statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan--against the 1975 UN "Zionism is racism" resolution. Written by leading historian, Professor Gil Troy, and published by Oxford University Press, Moynihan's Moment examines the shocking events that led to the drafting of the resolution, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's heroic efforts to prevent its passage, the public outrage it caused, and the effects it had--and continues to have--on the UN, US-Israel relations, and world opinion. Moynihan's Moment captures a pivotal, historic episode on the international political stage, when Americans stood up to defend Israel, democracy, and decency." 

From Gil Troy

I've never understood the New-Left's hatred of Israel and perhaps the Jewish community in America in general. Socialists are supposed to be for the underdog and looking after their well-being and even using government to do that. Who is the biggest underdog at least in the Middle East if not the world? It would be Jews, of course. An ethnic group that has at most ten-million members in and outside of Israel in the Mideast, in a region of three-hundred and fifty-million people. (Give or take) Israel, is literally surrounded by enemies once you get past Western Europe and into the Mideast.

And other than Egypt and Jordan they all hate Israel and would like to see the Jewish State be destroyed. Yet according to the Far-Left Marxist dictators are really cool and simply misunderstood hipsters who deserve our compassion. Even if they've murdered millions of people.  And according to the New-Left and Libertarian-Right, the Jews represent the real evil in the world. Even though they've been murdered by Marxists. And gays, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities in these Slavic countries have been murdered by Marxists regimes as well.

When the New-Left in America and the Libertarian-Right, go against Jewish-Americans and Israel, they're on the same team as Marxists, Baathists, Islamists and other authoritarians in the world. Who hate Jews, because they're Jewish and believe that Jews aren't entitled to their own homeland, if not lives in the world. They're in the same camp as the German Nazis who murdered millions of Jews in World War II and German Nazis who've murdered Jews and African-Americans in America. And the same thing as the KKK.

That is who the New-Left and Libertarian-Right are in bed with when it comes to their hatred towards Jews and Israel. If you want to support underdogs, sure! Palestine is a good place to start, because they're outnumbered, out-gunned and out-classed by the Israelis. And Palestinians by in large are good people. But how about Israel which is a developed country and democracy that is surrounded by people who hate them. That is what the Jews have faced in Europe, America and even their homeland in Israel and yet they're still her and doing well against horrible odds.

That is what Pat Moynihan stood up against at the United Nations. And organization that in the 1970s was in the third world Marxist dictator camp. Who saw Jews as the real racists in the world and stood up for every Far-Left rebellion that was trying to overthrow liberal democratic government's and establish their Marxism in their country. Instead of standing up for real freedom fighters who were actually fighting for their own freedom along with their own survival. The Jewish State of Israel, has been in a seventy-year struggle for their own survival. Against hundreds of millions of Arabs who hate them and don't believe they have a right to even exist.

If you want to fight for underdogs, how about first fighting for underdogs! I know, crazy concept, but if you say you're in favor of something you can at least understand what that is and what that means and then stand by it. But also fight for the good underdogs. People who fight for freedom and against racism. Not people who fight for Islamism, Marxism, or any other authoritarian philosophy. Whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. Stand up for freedom fighters who fight for freedom and stand for equality and equal rights. Not fascists who want to force their own warped ideology on an entire country.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Slate: Josh Voorhees- 'It's Official: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump'

Source:Slate Magazine- Tea Party Activist Sarah Palin.
Source:The Daily Review 

"And so ends the speculation about the “major” endorsement that Donald Trump has been teasing since this weekend, via the New York Times:

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, will endorse Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, officials with his campaign confirmed. The endorsement provides Mr. Trump with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses. “I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president,” Ms. Palin said in a statement provided by his campaign.

Palin is not nearly the political sensation she once was but her endorsement is nonetheless significant, particularly in a GOP race that continues to be shaped by anti-establishment anger. She’s placed similar high-profile bets correctly in the past—including supporting Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in their respective Senate bids—and has a lengthy fundraising list. Her endorsement will also provide Trump with a ready-made shield in the face of the Republican-In-Name-Only criticism that Cruz is currently lobbing his way, and could give him a boost in Iowa, where Trump and Cruz are battling it out for victory in the first nominating contest of 2016."  

"COMMENT And so ends the speculation about the “major” endorsement that Donald Trump has been teasing since this weekend, via the New York Times:" 

Source:Slate Magazine- Sarah Palin and Donald Trump announcing their latest reality TV venture.

From Slate Magazine

I think the only thing that could make the Sarah Palin endorsement of Donald Trump any better is for The Donald, if he goes on to win the GOP nomination for president to nominate Governor Palin as his vice presidential nominee. They wouldn't bother having to raise any more money themselves at that point, because they could go on Saturday Night Live every week and play themselves. And give the comedians who normally play The Donald and The Hockey Mom, a few months much deserved vacation. Perhaps Tina Fey and the guy who plays The Donald, could come in and do post-Donald-Hockey Mom commentary about their performance on SNL. Now can The Donald get Michele Bachmann out of the mental hospital long enough, or prison, to endorse him for president as well?

I know Sarah Palin is no genius and by the way Alaska is not a good place for sunbathing in January either. For anyone who loves obvious comments and if you do please seek help, or don't talk to me. But Sarah is endorsing a man who kept Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation in business in the 2000s. Who at least in the past has been very pro-choice and not just on abortion, but gambling, medical marijuana and I'm sure a whole bunch of other social issues. Who once supported single payer health insurance reform. Who said in the summer of 2004 that the American economy does better under Democrats. Back when The Donald actually spoke the truth from time to time. And this is the guy whose supposed to lead the next conservative revolution.

Is The Donald a grassroots Conservative, or is he a Democratic Socialist who would probably make a good running mate for Bernie Sanders. With The Donald making the case that American business's would do well under socialism, because The Donald is a Socialist and a very wealthy businessman. By the way, is Sarah Palin a grassroots Conservative, or a political satirist who knows less about politics and current affairs than Hawaiians know about ice fishing in Nova Scotia. Who is less qualified to run any government than your average mailman is to give you a much needed lifesaving heart transplant. If I'm Ted Cruz right now, I'm actually happy about this. Because now Donald Trump and his marijuana high supporters can't say that Ted is the brain-dead nut in the race. Because Sarah Palin didn't endorse him.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy