Monday, January 29, 2018

National Constitution Center: Alexander Hamilton's Vision of Federalism, National Authority & Judicial Review

Source: National Constitution Center-
Source:The New Democrat 

There is very little if any mention and discussion about federalism in this video even though Alexander Hamilton's vision of federalism is part of the title of the video. But I'll give you the vision of federalism that our Founding Fathers ( our Founding Liberals ) gave us.

There was no such thing as America or the United States pre-Revolutionary War when the British colonies in what is now known as the United States of America broke way from the United Kingdom. The 13 original colonies came together to form this one new nation and created a Federal Republic. Which is sort of stating the obvious but important for this discussion. A big reason why the colonies or American colonies broke away from Britain was because they wanted more autonomy and more ability to govern themselves.

The United Kingdom was a unitarian superstate both in mainland Britain but in their colonies as well. With all of the governmental power being centralized in London and with the King back when the U.K. Monarchy ran Britain. Britain is still a unitarian state with most of the governmental power rested with the U.K. Government, but they do have cities now and municipal government's with at least some control over their own local governmental affairs. And now Northern Ireland and Scotland, have some control over what Americans call their state affairs. What other countries call their provincial affairs.

So when the Founding Fathers created the United States of America, they just didn't want a republic but a federal republic. Where Americans wouldn't just be free from Britain, but from dictatorial power from a supersize central government where most of the power would be rested with the national government. A governmental system that Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, all love and want to keep. While Social Democrats or Socialists in America, want to replace because it severely constrains what the national government can try to do for the people.

Federalism is a governmental system of how government works in America and in other countries, including Europe like in Germany where the national government is much larger than in America's when you talk about percentage of the economy that is taxed and by national government. In a federalist system you have a national government that is called the federal government. But you also have state and local government's.

And you don't just have these other government's within the country, but they have real governmental authority over their own governmental affairs. And have the power to govern themselves and do for themselves what they choose to do as long as they're within the U.S. Constitution. So they can run their own law enforcement and education department's, but they can't discriminate based on race or try to create their own currency or military, try to eliminate property rights, the right to privacy, the right to free speech. State and local laws, like federal laws, have to be within the U.S. Constitutional. With all laws from all levels subject to judicial review.

I'm what I call and perhaps others call a Liberal Federalist. I'm both a Liberal and a Federalist. Which might sound like an Oxymoron to people who view Liberals as the same thing as Socialists and Communists. But I'm a Liberal in the classical and real sense and if you're a real Liberal you're not a fan of big over centralization of power whether it's private power with how business's and private organizations are run, or with how government is run. Which is why federalism is a perfect governmental system for myself and other Liberals because we don't want one big government trying to run everything for everybody in a country this huge and diverse. And don't believe Washington even with all their brilliant people are capable for making decisions for Los Angeles, Denver, Milwaukee, or any other jurisdiction that the U.S. Government doesn't have direct control over.

Federalism is the only type of governmental system that can work in a liberal democratic constitutional republic like America, because again of our physical size and being so huge physically, but also having such a large diverse population as well. Culturally, racially, ethnically, and politically diverse a country that we are. You try to impose a socialist unitarian superstate in America, which is what they still have in Britain today even with their new municipal government's, and you would see states like California, Texas, the Northwest, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, the states in New England, and others break away and try to form their own countries. Being a Federalist doesn't mean you approve of every law that another jurisdiction or your own jurisdiction passes. But it means you believe they have the right and should have the right to pass those laws and govern themselves as long as those laws are constitutional.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Marilyn Monroe The Ultimate Collection: Marilyn Monroe & The Making of The Misfits

Source: Echoes of The Past-
Source:The New Democrat

Just a personal note first.

Have you ever seen a gorgeous woman or any woman in general, look better in Levi's and boots, than Marilyn Monroe? If you look at The Misfits movie you have about 40-45 minutes of Marilyn in dark wash Levi's denim jeans were she's either wearing a tank top of white blouse and about 10-15 minutes or so of Marilyn with a blue Levi's denim jacket as well. And keep in mind, this movie was made in 1960 wear women weren't wearing tight jeans including Levi's on a regular basis at least on TV or in the movies. And you have this gorgeous baby-faced adorable blonde with a beautiful body in these dark wash Levi's and boots.
Source: Google

Women were barley wearing pants at all on TV and in the movies back then and if they were wearing pants at all, generally they were business pants. Tight jeans and boots for women especially that combo, didn't become common and mainstream for American women until the late 1970s with the designer jeans revolution. Marilyn was sort of like Catherine Bach ( who played Daisy Duke on The Dukes of Hazzard ) in The Misfits as far as style and looked gorgeous and sexy during the entire movie.

As far as the movie itself it wasn't a great movie. It was entertaining and at times pretty funny. But Elie Wallach who was one of the best actors at least of his generation and in this movies is right about the word misfits. The four main characters in the movie including Marilyn, but also with Burt Lancaster, Eli Wallach, Thelma Ritter, and Montgomery Clift, were basically all drifters who went from place to place and got involved in this or that. Gary Langland, ( played by Burt Lancaster ) Guido, ( played by Eli Wallach ) and Pierce Howland, ( played by Montgomery Clift ) were all Nevada cowboys but they were part-time cowboys at this point.

Roslyn Taber ( played by Marilyn Monroe ) and Isabelle Steers ( played by Thelma Ritter ) were even  bigger drifters than the cowboys. Roselyn was just recently divorced and not knowing where she was going from there and how where her life was going. Isabelle was Roselyn's friend but perhaps even more of a drifter than Roselyn and just being with her friend to help her out and try to start over. They end up in Reno, Nevada and stop at a bar which is where they meet Gary and Guido and start to get to know each other. And they tell the two woman that they're cowboys which is where Roselyn gets interested and find out that Roselyn has nowhere to stay and Gary brings her back to his cabin.

The Roselyn character is so sweet, adorable, and innocent in the movie. Idealistic and naive and overly idealistic as well. Expecting people to better than they actually are. Marilyn was literally the kid in the movie both figuratively and literally. With the other four main characters all having real world experience and knowing people for who they are. The seen when they start to go rodeoing is a perfect example of that. Roselyn thinks that the guys there are just there to catch horses and then let them go for sport. When the fact is they're doing it for money and are going to sell the horses to people that are going to kill the horses and use them for meet to sell on the market. The only person in the group who is not aware of this going in. Like a kid.

This is not Marilyn Monroe's worst movie and certainly not her best movie. I believe she physically looks her best in this movie along with The River of No Return where she plays a woman with a lot more experience and sense for the real world. In The Misfits I believe she comes off as 15-16 year old little girl and not just because she was adorable enough enough to pass for a girl that young physically. But her character's personality in this movie is very immature and inexperienced. Good movie if you love gorgeous sexy women in jeans and boots and love cowgirls. But the movie itself leaves plenty to be desired.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Elm Street Nasty: 'Homeless in Anaheim'

Source:Elm Street Nasty- a part of Anaheim, California that a lot of people don't see.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Copyright Disclaimer, Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." 

From Elm Street Nasty 

As I see it there are four levels of poverty in America and it would be bad to have to live at any of these levels in life and try to survive. But there are levels that are worst off than others. 

Level one as I see it, would be the working poor: people with perhaps a full-time job and maybe another job on the side and perhaps are able to get by. But don't make enough money to live above the poverty rate in America and perhaps live on some form of public assistance in America and collect Medicaid or Food Stamps. 

Then there would be level two people, who are unemployed or underemployed and perhaps work seasonable jobs or are on Unemployment Insurance or Welfare Insurance. If they are on Unemployment Insurance, perhaps they are well-educated, but the job they used to have no longer exists. Or they can't find another job in their field at this point. Or didn't finish high school or College or both and had kids before they were ready to support them on their own and are perhaps Single Parents with the other parent out of the picture. 

Then there's level three Poverty, the hungry in America who don't have access to enough food because they can't afford it and they don't have enough food for themselves and their family or perhaps both. The odd thing about level three poverty is that a lot of these people have jobs and perhaps full-time jobs and perhaps another job on the side to go with their full-time job. And perhaps collect Medicaid and Food Stamps, yet they don't can't afford to feed themselves and their families adequately. 

Then there's level four poverty, the homeless in America people who suffer from perhaps all of the consequences that the other levels of poverty, but what's worse is that they can't afford to feed themselves and their families adequately and can't afford a place to live at all. Plus they may also have a health condition or a mental condition or an addiction or a combination of all of these factors that they have to deal with. 

I'm concern with all four levels of poverty in America and have blogged about all four levels before, but in this post I'm going to concentrate on level four homelessness because thats the biggest problem with the most challenges as I see it. 

What we've been doing to fight homelessness in America for the last thirty years and perhaps longer than that, is essentially a warehouse project: essentially warehousing the homeless in America which might sound awful, but its true, its also the same approach we've used to house our prison inmates as well which is a different post. But what we've been doing with the homeless, is bring them off the street and into a homeless shelter or find a homeless shelter on their own. Give them a meal and a cot for the night and perhaps breakfast the next day. But then send them back onto the street no matter the whether good or bad or in between. To make room for the next group of homeless the next day. 

And with this approach we've saved a few homeless people for that night or day, from starvation or freezing to death or being mugged. But then we give them another opportunity to reach that fate the next day by kicking them back on the street the next day. And continuing the cycle of poverty as it relates to homelessness, instead of dealing with the issues of why they are homeless in the first place. 

The way we can help them deal with these issues by empowering them to deal with their own issues. So they can become self-sufficient and close this chapter in their life and move on to a better chapter. What we should be doing instead of having homeless warehouses which is how I would refer to a typical homeless shelter. 

What we should be doing is having housing centers for the homeless which is already happening in big cities like Sacramento and San Antonio. Where these people can get help with their issues and while they are receiving this help. Would live in a motel like setting by themselves or with their family. While they are getting help with the issues that they have for why they homeless in the first place from a housing center. 

Housing centers could help the needy with things like health care, drug rehab, education, and job placement, and then help finding their home, if they need it. As well as other things they would need like getting a state ID as well as sign up for things like Welfare Insurance or Unemployment Insurance, public housing, Food Stamps, and a job in the housing center. To help offset the costs of their stay there so these centers can pay their bills. 

Homelessness in America is a huge problem and represents a major percentage of our poverty rate, especially with the Great Recession and the housing crisis that we are still struggling to recover from. But it's an issue that we can overcome if we are clever and intelligent about it. And move pass the idea of warehousing people and instead empowering people to get themselves the skills that they need to become self-sufficient.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

National Constitution Center: 'How Dr. Martin L. King Cited The Constitution in His Mountaintop Speech'

Source: National Constitution Center- Dr. Martin L. King, the champion of the American civil rights movement, perhaps in 1968.
Source:The New Democrat 

"Dr. King used the Constitution to make his case for the civil rights movement all the time and did it in a very intelligent and accurate way. Saying that African-Americans had the exact same constitution rights as every other American including European-Americans and even English-Protestants simply because they were Americans. That the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution does exactly that. It protects all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity equally. It doesn't say that some Americans are more valuable and worthy than others simply because of their race or ethnicity."

From National Constitution Center

"Two experts of Martin Luther King's last speech. He delivered it on April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple in Memphis, Tennessee. The next day, King was assassinated."

From News Political Info
Source:News Politics Info- Dr. Martin L. King's mountaintop speech in 1968.

With Southern Anglo-Saxon states in America who were govern by Neo-Confederates who decided that they since they lost the Civil War that what they would do now is simply deny African-Americans their constitutional rights and argue they can do that under some bogus ( to be nice ) argument that under the 10th Amendment and what they call states rights that they ( states ) can essentially do whatever they want. The problem with that argument is that the Constitution supersede's states rights. The states have to be inline with the Constitution just as much as the Federal Government has to be.

Another part of the Constitution that Dr. King consistently cited in his argument for the civil rights movement is the First Amendment. The guaranteed right for all Americans to free speech and free assembly in America. The right for all Americans to peacefully assemble together and express their free speech rights and speak out against injustices and anything else that they want to speak out against. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and other states back in the 1960s, obviously had another interpretation of the First Amendment. And simply saw African-Americans as not much more than criminals and terrorists and in some cases still as animals like in the era of slavery and believed they could breakup these protests and deny these Americans their First Amendment rights.

The civil rights movement even if it was considered radical back in the 1960s before racial and ethnic minorities became prevalent in America and before minorities had large numbers and before racism was considered to be evil by in large in the Caucasian community, the civil rights movement was about as mainstream as any political movement we've ever seen in America. Because it was about the U.S. Constitution and enforcing it for all Americans. Which under the Constitution itself it's supposed to be enforced equally for all Americans anyway. And I believe Dr. King always understood that.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Marilyn Monroe Family: The Death of Marilyn Monroe

Source: Marilyn Monroe Family-
Source:The New Democrat

Marilyn Monroe is now such a pop culture icon and hero to so many fans of pop culture and hipsters in America, that they simply can’t handle the fact that a woman like this who is so popular and is now such a fashion icon, could actually kill herself and did kill herself. Whether it was accidentally, which has always been my argument since I’ve been following this case closely for three years now, or intentionally which I don’t believe happened.

The followers of John F. Kennedy who can’t believe that a career loser like Lee Harvey Oswald, could actually put together the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, have the same love and devotion to JFK, as the followers and admirers of Marilyn Monroe. One side believing that a loser couldn’t kill their hero. The other side believing that their hero couldn’t had possibly kill herself. This is my more positive approach and take about the conspiracy theorists regarding the death of Marilyn Monroe.

My my more realistic and cynical view about the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the death of Marilyn Monroe, has to do with people who view this as a money making opportunity for them, a business investment. Knowing that there is small but large enough faction of Americans who are willing to believe that the official position on the death of Marilyn having to do with being suicide and accidental overdose, couldn’t possibly had happen because Marilyn was such an icon and goddess that she couldn’t have possibly had kill herself and that people will be more than willing to buy books, documentaries, view documentaries on TV about conspiracy theories involving how Marilyn died that night. Ranging from President Kennedy ordering the murder of Marilyn, to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy the President’s brother committing the murder himself.

Anybody can have a conspiracy theory. But if you want to have that theory be taken seriously by people who aren’t already there with you and ready to believe you, who don’t come off as people who just got out of a mental institution, perhaps escaped from one, or act as if they might need to be in one and are headed to one, you need real evidence. You need evidence that puts someone in the room at or about the time that Marilyn died. And you need a cause of death and show that someone else other than Marilyn is responsible for her death. And the people who believe or claim to believe that someone other than Marilyn Monroe herself is responsible for her own death, have never offered any evidence that someone other than Marilyn killed herself on that summer might in 1962.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy