The Economist: 'What if Women Ruled The World?'

Source:The Economist- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, New York City)

Source:The New Democrat

"Only 6.3% of all international leaders are women. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Liberian president and Africa's first elected female head of state, suggests ways to redress the balance."

From The Economist

To sort of have fun with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's comment about the world would be a better place if women ruled the world: if you're a regular of the so-called reality TV series Housewives, you might not think the world would be a safer place if women ruled the world. Most of the time they're either arguing, swearing at each other, even physically fighting and throwing things at each other. Which might be the only reason why those shows are so popular with all the catfighting. A good so-called reality TV show makes the WWE look like a golf match: way too quiet and peaceful.

As far as women ruling the world and to take a more serious look at this: ( for a change ) the only way to achieve power in America or anywhere else in the world, is to achieve power. Which I know sort of sounds like Captain Obvious on his best day, but anything that's worth doing is worth working for. You don't achieve power in America or anywhere else by sitting at home or at some coffee house staring at your phone and hoping someone else does it for you. But instead you have to enter the free market of ideas ( also known as liberal democracy ) and put yourself out there and make to case to anyone who will hear you why you're the most qualified candidate out there and should hold that office, instead of the man you are running against or perhaps another woman that you might be running against.

Some might argue ( like radical feminists ) that it's hard for women to run office because of sexism and all the negative stereotypes women especially female candidates get about being tough and not seeming feminine enough and all of that: try making that case to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement of the 1960s: what if Dr. King believed that his civil rights movement wasn't worth it because of all the violence and racism that he and his movement would face from those racist, Neo-Confederate state government's in the South and decided: "the hell with it, this is not worth it." You think America and the world would be different if women were in charge: imagine how different America would be if the African-American community was satisfied with living as second-class citizens and in some cases not even treated like citizens at all.

I realize the women's movement ( whatever that is supposed to be today ) is not an exact parallel to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but there are similarities in as far as what both movements were up against from the outset. And in the civil rights case and to a large extent with a lot of female candidates and female politicians today, a lot of these people knew that from the outset as well and decided that it was worth it and that just because they're female that doesn't make them any less qualified to hold public office than their male counterparts. Which is how 70 or more women get elected to Congress last year with most of those women getting elected to the House. ( You want more female Senators, they have to run for office first )

And I just get back to my first serious point to close this: anything in life regardless of which country it is that's worth achieving in life is worth working for. Even if there are a lot of obstacles that are thrown at you and even unfair obstacles: like people being judged simply by their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. And a lot of times you need those thoroughbreds from the outset who don't completely throw caution to the wind, but knows exactly what's in front of them and takes it on anyway with a game plan to accomplish their goals. You don't win games by sitting on the sidelines. And you don't win elections and get elected by sitting at home.

The Economist: Daniel Franklin: 'What's The Point of NATO?'

Source:The Economist- Uploaded by The Economist.

Source:The New Democrat

"NATO was set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat. Its North American and European members must continue to change the alliance if it is to remain relevant in the 21st century."

Source:The Economist

 If there is anything that I actually agree with President Donald Trump on and if there is one thing that he's gotten right in his two years as President, it's NATO and the fact that the United States is essentially responsible for the national defense of the entire West, or at least the northern part of the west. With Britain, France, a certain extent Germany playing major but much smaller roles in the defense of Europe. And this is as someone who is in favor of the concept of NATO and view is as the most successful international organization not just in the world today, but in world history.

Just as an American who comes from a country that values individualism and that everyone should at least try to take care of themselves if not support themselves, why should American taxpayers be forced to subsidize the national defense of other developed countries: it would be one thing if Germany was poor, but they're a country of 80 plus million people, with an economy of over 4 trillion dollars, with 4th largest economy of the world. Their gross national domestic product is about as large as Japan's and they have 50 million fewer people than Japan, without nearly as much territory as Japan and without the natural resources of Japan.

Germany, has roughly the same per-capita income as America without the national debt and budget deficits that we have and yet we as Americans are forced by international law to subsidize the national defense of another entire large developed country. Why is that? If there is anything that Americans dislike more than crooks, liars, and hypocrites, its freeloaders.  The reason why we do this is because Germany sees itself as a great social democracy that doesn't believe in national defense, at least not as a large priority and more than willing to let someone else especially a superpower that has a great relationship with ( at least pre-Donald Trump ) to take care of their national defense for them. But as an American that's not a good enough reason for me.

With the rise of nationalism both in America, Britain, and Europe now is the perfect time for Europe ( especially Germany ) to step up to the plate ( or step up to the ball, to use a soccer phrase ) and knock one out of the ballpark ( or kick one in the net ) and handle their own national defense. Which would be great for Europe's security, as well as economy. They would no longer have to worry about whether American taxpayers will continue to subsidize their national defense. And they would create millions of good jobs in their countries in their defense industries, because their militaries will now be first world, with first world defense resources and money to secure their own countries.

A new European defense alliance that could either replace NATO or go along with it with the Euro states now responsible for their own national defense and be partnered with Britain, America, and Canada in the West would make Europe a world power and keep them relevant especially with the rise of Vladimir Putin's Russia who are looking to bring back the Russian empire, as well as China in the Far East that wants to be the next superpower in the world.

The Economist: Lane Greene- 'The Truth About Lies'

Source:The Economist- President Barack Obama: 44th POTUS and no more dishonest than any other politician or vote.

Source:The New Democrat

"From little fibs to big fat whoppers, lying is part of human nature. Lane Greene, our language guru, examines the difference between lies, falsehoods and plain nonsense."

Source:The Economist

From Dictionary

A lie is a: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood."

Similar to terms like racist or bigot, Islamophobe, antisemite ( and unfortunately I could go on ) liar is a real word with real meaning and shouldn't be misused especially by people who are simply trying to score partisan points for their team and make the other side look as bad as they can get away with by spinning convenient facts to make their arguments. So if you're going to call someone a liar, you better know that they're deliberating making false statements with the intent to deceive and you better know that they tell lies, otherwise you're just falsely libeling that person.

If I told someone that I was 7'0 tall, I would obviously lying there, but only because I'm a half foot short. ( Or more ) But if I told someone I was 6'5 when I'm 6'4 3/4, I wouldn't be lying there especially if I believed I was 6'5, or just rounded it up. People make false statements all the time, doesn't mean they're lying all the time. Most if not all of us lie anyway, but tell real lies or flatter people because we want them to feel good. The only difference between the average Joe or Mary on the street compared with famous people on the street like politicians, is most of the country doesn't know when we're lying, because most of the country hasn't heard of us.

What makes politicians different is that they're public people and have to be public people to accomplish anything in their current job, or to get elected to higher office. And of course politicians lie, the question is do they lie more than the average Joe or Mary or any other average non-famous American. And I would argue that they don't simply because politicians are no more or less American and human as anyone else other than they're famous and are very ambitious people.

And politicians tend to represent people who say they want honest people and yet they elect and reelect people who in many cases are dishonest and see lying as a way to avoid taking tough stances on positions and to coverup their less than honest behavior. ( Let's say ) So in that sense at least voters are liars as well because when polled they say they want honest, moral people representing them while they elect and reelect dishonest and crooked people. So who do voters have to blame for that other than the person that they see in the mirror?

To paraphrase Lane Greene: there are liars and bullshitters and I would add idiots.

The liar consistently says things that they know aren't true to deceive who they're talking to.

The bullshitter is even worse because that person simply makes things up and could probably care less if people who they're talking to knows that they are bullshitting them.

The idiot, is the biggest asshole of the group, but not internally because they continually speak out of their ass about things that they know almost nothing about and believe that they're a lot smarter than they actually are. And aren't even smart enough to know what they're saying is simply bullshit. (Nonsense or garbage, if you prefer ) Stay away from the idiot, because that person is probably the most dangerous of the group. Sort of like a drunk gunslinger with a loaded gun.

But not everyone who makes false statement are liars. And as we've learned from the Russia investigation the last two years, you don't have to be lying to get in trouble with law enforcement officials. You can be arrested and prosecuted for simply making false statements to those officials even if you believe what you're saying is the truth. Which is another reason why we shouldn't call ever false statement a lie and every asshole a liar, because they might simply not know what they't saying and what they're talking about. And be no more dishonest than you are an average politician.

The Economist: 'The Literature of Liberalism'

Source:The Economist- Liberal thinkers. 

Source:The New Democrat  

"THE definition of liberalism has long been the source of disagreement. The tension between its various strands—such as American progressivism, libertarianism and the classical tradition in which The Economist was founded—can seem irreconcilable. So for Open Future, an initiative aimed at sparking debate around liberal values, we aimed to build a bibliography of liberalism in its it many forms." 

From The Economist 

"CEU's Rethinking Open Society project brings leading thinkers to CEU to examine open society, its history, its achievements and failures, and its future prospects in a political environment that challenges its ideals. It is an effort to subject the ideals of open society to unsparing scrutiny, and answer some of the fundamental questions of our time.

This video features an interview with Roger Scruton who is a writer and philosopher who has published more than forty books in philosophy, aesthetics and politics. He is widely translated. He is a fellow of the British Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature." 

Source:Central European University- Roger Scruton talking about liberal democracy.

From Central European University

There's been this ongoing debate about what liberalism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal. If you were ask me as a Liberal what it means to be a Liberal, I would tell you it means someone who believes in the defense of liberty, meaning the protection of individual rights. If you were to ask me what Liberals believe the role of government is I would tell you is to defend and conserve our individual rights. And where they can expand freedom for people who don't currently have it.

I believe this definition works for anyone who considers them self to be a Liberal and perhaps Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but that doesn't work for everyone especially people who are further left and even Far-Left, but don't see themselves as Far-Left and it's just that everyone else is out of the mainstream, but somehow they're the sane, rational, mainstream people. And instead of calling themselves Socialists or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, they prefer to be called Liberals, in some cases Progressives, and the more candid members of the Far-Left especially in America might call themselves Modern Liberals.

Even though a lot of what the Far-Left advocates for is actually illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) and not liberal at all. Like censorship when it comes to offensive and critical speech, or hate speech. Protesting against Halloween and Thanksgiving, team nicknames, because they believe those holidays are somehow racist. Using big government to make the dietary decisions for everyone and tell everybody what they can eat and drink and what we can say to each other and in some cases even what we can do with our own bodies. Otherwise known as the nanny state which is just another example of the illiberal-left, not liberal-left.

Along with all of their big centralize government views when it comes to the economy where they believe wealth should essentially outlawed and taxes so high so government can decide how much money and freedom everyone should have, because they don't want anyone to be rich or poor. As well as the belief that big centralize national government is always the best government and decentralizing governmental power is somehow dangerous, along with personal freedom and free speech being dangerous (according to the illiberal-left) which is just another way of saying Far-Left or New-Left.

Even though one of the core liberal values of liberalism is that big centralize power shouldn't be trusted and always held accountable and then absolute power whether it's public power or private power corrupts absolutely. But it's not liberal values that the Far-Left believes in, but instead collectivist values and in some cases social democratic values that they believe in.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

According to Merriam Webster

Illiberalism is: "opposition to or lack of liberalism."

So someone who is against free speech and instead is in favor of censorship when it comes to language they don't like whether it's in movies or music, t-shirts, critical speech, offensive speech, hate speech even, someone who believes that speech that's offensive should be censored and that political correctness should be the policy when it comes to speech, is proposing an illiberal view.

Someone who doesn't believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, otherwise known as personal freedom even if they're pro-choice when it comes to women's reproductive rights and sexuality and romance freedom and that romantic couples shouldn't be required to get married before they start living together and having kids, even if you're pro-choice on the issues meaning things that you already agree with, but propose personal freedom in general, because you believe it's dangerous and that individuals can't be trusted to make their own decisions, you're not very pro-choice.

Someone who is pro-choice lets say on abortion, but believes gambling, junk food, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, should be outlawed, is not very pro-choice. The key when it comes to being pro-choice or not is whether you're pro-choice on abortion and sexuality, or things that you already agree with, but on issues that you might have problems with and wouldn't make those choice for yourself.

Do you believe that people should have the right to make their own personal decisions even if they may disagree with some of their decisions, or not. And if you tend to believe that people should be able to make their own personal decisions, then I suggest you're not only pro-choice, but you might be a Liberal as well. If you're not generally pro-choice, then you're not only not liberal, but probably illiberal which again is the opposite of what it means to be a Liberal.

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values: things like free speech, personal autonomy, decentralization of power, checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government, individual rights, equal rights, equal justice for all, free speech, personal autonomy, and yes property rights and markets. 

Liberals don't want the government trying to do everything for everybody. Which is just one thing that separates us from Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and Theocrats on the Far-Right. And if you believe in the liberal values that I just suggested and not the illiberal values where personal freedom practically doesn't exist, because big government has so much power, then I suggest that you might be a Liberal.

The Economist: John Stuart Mill- Against Tyranny of The Majority: The Father of Liberalism

Source:The Economist- Tyranny of The Majority. 

Source:The New Democrat

What is this is really about is democracy and there several different forms of democracy which I'm going to explain here. And if you're familiar with this blog and my writing, you know that we believe in the liberal form of democracy which is liberal democracy which is what we advocate and I'm going to talk about here as well.

Source: The Federalist Papers- One of the first Liberals 

There are several different forms of democracy. Democracy in itself is just about voting and that citizens deserve the right to vote in their communities and country It's just about being able to not only vote, but having choices in who you vote for. Different party's and different candidates with the voters getting to decide who represents them in the legislature whether it's local, state, or national. Or who get to serve as the chief executive of their community, state, or country. Don't mistake democracy with freedom, because they're two different things. In free societies of course they elect their leaders and representatives through democratic elections. But you could have a country that's technically a democracy, but where you don't have much freedom. Like Russia or Venezuela, or Iran.

Source: Fact Myth- Our Founding Liberals 

What this blog promotes and what I promote with my blog is what's called liberal democracy. America is a liberal democracy, where yes we have multi-party elections, but that's not the basis of our government and not where our people get their freedom. We're a liberal democratic constitutional federal republic. With all sorts of individual rights including the right to vote, but all the right to free speech, the right to worship or not worship, the right to privacy, property rights, the right to sell-defense, even the right to education. All coming not from God or some great Socialist who decided that we should all have these rights, but from our Constitution that was created by our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised 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, 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 formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

So when someone is talking about the tyranny of the majority, they're saying that lets say in a majoritarian democracy where majority vote always rules or in a social democracy with similar outcomes where a lot of policy decisions are made through referendum, what they mean by tyranny of the majority is that the majority getting to rule over the minority and be able to make decisions on their behalf simply because they have more votes than the minority.

Anyone with a basic social studies understanding of American government and our Constitution that you could get at any quality high school in this country, knows that the majority doesn't always get their way.

Look at the U.S. Senate where you almost always 60-100 votes to pass anything, or our constitutional amendment process, where you need 2/3 majority from both the House and Senate in Congress, as well as 34-50 states to approve any constitutional amendment. Or the U.S. Supreme Court that throws out laws that were passed with a majority because they're unconstitutional. Or our Electoral College where big states don't get to rule over smaller states in the presidential election simply because their states are bigger.

In a liberal democracy, of course we have the right to vote, but we have so many other individual rights as well both personal as well as economic. We own or rent our homes instead of government deciding where we live. Law enforcement needs a warrant in order to enter our homes and property.

Our right to free speech, the right to practice or not practice religion, equal rights and justice under law.

The right not to be discriminated against and denied access in society simply because of our race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The right to make our own personal decisions and choices which is protected by our 4th Amendment.

These are just some of the examples of what makes up a liberal democracy and why I'm a Liberal Democrat ideologically, because I believe in liberal democracy. The right to be left alone and live freely in society. Along with other great liberal values like free press, rule of law, checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and limited government.

The Economist: When Donald Trump Met Vladimir Putin- Cartooned

Source:The Economist- Don & Vlad, meeting in Helsinki. 

Source: The New Democrat

I think a better name for the Trump-Putin Summit in Helsinki could be, "When Republicans go Hippie" or, "When Republicans Became Idealistic, Utopian, Hippies", with the subtitle being, "Give Peace a Chance." I can just see what would've happened if let's say, gee I don't know George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich from back in the day, took this approach with any dictator whether the dictator was a rightist like Vladimir Putin's case or a leftist like Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela, the Republican Party would have a nationalist freakout calling any of those Democrats American traitors and appeasers who should be locked up, the American Neville Chamberlain. ( Sorry for the Chamberlain reference, if you're not familiar or knowledgeable about history )

Source: The Economist- Vladimir Putin, trying to hold back a smirk or laughter at Donald Trump 

Not saying all Republicans now sound like they're idealistic, utopian, hippies, who'll be calling for the end of racism, war, hunger, and poverty, not just in America, but around the world tomorrow. Not all Republicans today talk like they live on marijuana farms who only live there for the free pot and not to sell it, just saying too many of them do. Just saying too many Republicans, would like to go back or visit for the first time the late 1960s and live in San Francisco and be around other people who believe everything that is bad about the world can be eliminated if people just want and campaign for it.

Source: Issuu- Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin, more than a bromance at this point 

Some Republicans have stayed home and missed the last spaceship flight to Planet Utopia and are not only still in touch with the real world and don't just have relatives, friends, and colleagues on Planet Earth, but physically and mentally still live here. Like Senator's Flake, Corker, McCain, Graham, Rubio, even Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as plenty of House Republicans like Ed Royce and others including the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Just saying too many Republicans have taken the Trump flight to Utopia when it comes to President Trump, President Putin and Russia.

And because of President Donald Trump's attitude and what seems to look like an admiration if not friendship for just Vladimir Putin, but other dictators like Kim Jung-Un from the Communist Republic of Korea, he becomes a national joke and target for comedians including cartoonists over at The Economist. People who normally live in the real world both physically and mentally, but make fun of people who vacation on other planets that look and sound nothing like Planet Earth. Whatever you think of President Donald Trump, gotta admit that he's great for comedy about himself.

Which just goes to show you that whatever touch and feel that Donald Trump may have had when he was running for President this natural feel for how voters feel about him and feel in general, he doesn't seem to have much of that as President Trump. And makes big decisions like this like appeasing a Russian dictator believing it will play very well for him politically, instead of blowing up in his face like a guy pumping gas while he's having a smoke at the same time. ( What could possible go wrong? ) And in this sense President Trump, is starting to sound and act like President Jimmy Carter without President Carter's intelligence, experience, character, as someone who doesn't have much of a feel about American politics as far as how Americans feel about what's he's doing and about him personally.
The Economist: Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin- Cartooned

The Economist: 'Liberalism- Where Did it Come From and Are its Days Numbered?'

Source:The Economist- Lady Liberty!

Source:The New Democrat 

"Liberalism has been the dominant political philosophy in the West for more than 200 years. Populists say liberals are too elite and are out of touch with ordinary people. Here's what you need to know about liberalism and its place in modern society."  

From The Economist

On this overcast, ugly, cool Memorial Day in the nations capital just outside of Washington, I thought as we celebrate as a country the lives of the people who died for our freedom, I would explain how we got that freedom as a country and the philosophy that our freedom and individual rights is based on. Whether you want to call it classical liberalism or as I prefer just liberalism, liberalism is what our individual freedom and individual rights are actually based on. No other political philosophy has given us that. As well to speak to The Economist piece, do I believe liberalism is in trouble in America and around the world or not.

Source: Tedfri Teff- Good definition of liberal democracy

Liberalism is based off of liberal democracy and the principles of what's called classical liberalism. Representative democracy where the people elect their leaders and politicians. But what also comes with liberal democracy is individual rights and things like separation of powers. A free press for example so government can't control both their own operations and enforcement, as well as the information that the people receive in the country. As well as free speech for individuals so people aren't arrested or detained simply for disagreeing with the government or anyone else. And that right to express themselves so long as they aren't falsely accusing, harassing people, or inciting violence. And that even covers offensive and hate speech. ( Sorry, political correctness warriors )

Source: My English Teacher- Good definition of Liberal

But not just a constitutional right to free speech which is a liberal right to free speech which covers a lot of ground, but individual rights, freedom, self-determination in general, that comes with limited government with again separation of powers, as well as the rule of law. People have the freedom over their own lives in a liberal democracy, but not the freedom to take someone else's freedom away from them, especially the right to life ( another liberal individual right ) unless it's in self defense. Our Founding Fathers ( our Founding Liberals ) didn't create America because they wanted to bring the British authoritarian monarchy here, but because they wanted to get away from it and create a liberal free society based off of self-determination, individual rights, and limited government.

Do I believe liberalism is in trouble in America and around the world? Yes, but because you have two competing authoritarian populist factions that don't believe in freedom and see it as dangerous. The Nationalists on the Far-Right, who don't believe in immigration, integration, multiculturalism, the rule of law, a free press, would like to see views that are critical of them be outlawed and the people who express those views be jailed. We see this with the Donald Trump movement in America, but also with Nigel Farage Nationalists in Britain.

And we see it with young people in America and in Europe on the Far-Left. Who have more respect for Karl Marx and Che Guevara and see Communists and Socialists as their pop culture icons as well as ideological heroes. And look down at people like Jack Kennedy, Tom Jefferson, and other Liberals who gave us our liberal democracy and freedom. They see Liberals as corrupt and bigoted, but Communists as great people who should be celebrated. it's not just the Bernie Sanders social democratic wing ( or Democratic Socialists ) that young people in America and in Europe are in love with ideologically and culturally, but authoritarians who are even further left of the Democratic Socialists in America and in Europe.

As long as you have these two growing political factions in America and in Europe, that see political diversity as a dangerous thing and that the other side aren't just political opponents, but enemies, with both major political parties in America expecting their political party to nominate someone from their fringe wing or they won't bother voting in the general election, liberalism and liberal democracy will be in danger in America. You'll always have a President who believes that anything critical of him should be punished and not allowed to get out in the public, especially if it's true. And an opposition party that believes they should not only defeat the party in power, but replace it with their own fringe and replace the Nationalists with Socialists and Communists, the people who believe in liberal democracy and freedom in general, will suffer.

The Economist: Lane Green- Why Do We Swear?

Source: The Economist- don't piss this guy off!

Source:The New Democrat

Warning: this piece could offend a lot of people who are very religious and have a PG-13 mentality.

Before I explain why I believe we (meaning Americans, as if there is anyone else ) swear, first we should know what swearing is and what it isn't.

"Make a solemn statement or promise undertaking to do something or affirming that something is the case." That is not the type of swearing that I'm talking about. Joe swearing to his girlfriend Sally that he would never cheat on her again, is not the type of swearing that I'm talking about.

"Use offensive language, especially as an expression of anger." That is the type of swearing that I'm talking about." God dammit, where the fuck is that pizza I ordered a couple of hours ago?" That is more inline with what I'm talking about.

There is swearing and there is swearing. Which I know sounds like a great impression of Captain Obvious, but it makes my greater point. There is moderate swearing like damn or hell. And there is stronger swearing that will still get you bleeped even on network TV today. Like what the fuck, holy shit, mother fucker, fucking, etc, words and phrases that if you don't use when you're on HBO or Showtime or whatever the current action/thriller movie is today, you'll sound like you just flew in from Planet Zolkon or someplace and sound alien to the people who normally live on Earth. You can't watch an HBO, Showtime, or Cinemax show or movie today, without not just hearing those hardcore swear words, but hearing probably a hundred times in any given hour.

But what the hell is common on network TV not just today, but going back to the early and mid 1970s with shows like All in The Family, Maude, M*A*S*H, and others, but now we'll here hell in the nightly newscasts and all over cable news. Like, "they're going to have a helluva time putting that back together. Or, "what the hell was he thinking?" Which seems to be a common question today when talking about someone involved in the Trump Administration. ( Ha, ha )

But damn you might sound like moderate cussing, especially with today's reality TV/HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, etc audience, but when you're damming someone, you're condemning them to hell. Damn you is not a complement. "Damn you Tom! You're doing a great job" That might sound like a complement, but it's not. Now, "damn you Tom! You're an hour late. Where the hell have you been?" That is more inline with how damn you is used which is to express anger at someone because they pissed you off. Pissed off again with today's reality TV slash cable TV Millennial audience, might sound like moderate swearing, but it isn't.

Now, why as a country does America swear so much? And again I'm not talking about moderate swearing, but the favorite swear words of cable TV and reality TV? I believe it has to do with America's obsession with sounding cool, as if the people we are as ourselves is not cool enough. The more pissed off we sound as people in America, the cooler we come off. Cool in the traditional sense as someone who is level-headed and takes things as they come, we've been here before, no big deal, like Joe Montana quarterbacking the San Francisco 49ers when the game is not online, someone with a personality like that would look really cool 25 years ago even.

But now with this obsession with being part of whatever the latest trend in awesome or whatever is and becoming famous celebrities in our own right and people feeling the need to be cool and famous so badly, anger sells now and sells a lot. If you're caught on camera or video getting into a fight at a nightclub looking real pissed off and cussing your ass off, that video of you could go viral and you could become famous just based on that with someone later contracting you and wanting to get to know you and probably have some entertainment business opportunity for you.

But if you're just at that club having a good time and perhaps you just have one girlfriend and to go back to Joe Montana with that Joe Cool personality, you'll just be another guy at that club. You want to be famous, show up to that same club with multiple girlfriends and that will improve your image with the people that you want to see you as cool.
Source:The Economist

The Economist: Srdja Popovic Interviewing Bassem Youssef- Revolution For Dummies

Source:The Economist- Bassem Youssef.

Source:The New Democrat 

What I would say about this is that it takes a special type of narcissist to want to be a dictator, let alone actually be a dictator. Regardless of whatever authoritarian ideology you come from. Whether it's communism religious theocracy, militarism, oligarchy, nationalism, whatever it might be. It takes a special type of narcissist to believe that you're so great and you're like a God ( even if you're a Communist ) to believe you're so great and so brilliant, that you're not only great with your own personal life, that you're qualified to run the personal lives of everyone else in your country.

You believe you're so brilliant that you can make great decisions for people you've never met before and know what's best for perfect strangers. That you just don't just see yourself as a dictator, but a psychic and a mindreader as well. You see into the future and see what perfect strangers need and what they should think and how they should act and every other personal decisions that people make in their lives everyday. Maybe that is why Donald Trump admires dictators ( or at least Vladimir Putin ) because he sees himself that way as well.

Dictators might see themselves as brilliant and godlike before they come to power, but once it becomes clear even to the regime that things aren't going very well and country is now in bad shape that power is not just over centralized with the national state, but the dictator himself, the dictator has to find others to blame or the people and even his own regime will lose faith in their so-called great leader and look for other leadership. According to Fidel Castro it was never his fault that the Cuban Marxist economy was failing. It was always the fault of the Americans according to Fidel. The same thing is now going on in Venezuela where of course the Maduro Regime won't take the blame for their failing socialist economy that doesn't have the ability to provide their people with even the basic necessities of life like toilet paper.

Mark my words ( or some cheesy bullshit like that ) if the American economy were to start sliding in 2018-19, President Donald Trump won't take an ounce of responsibility for that. The economic downturn will become the Obama downturn according to President Trump and his Administration. Even though President Trump would've been in office for 1-2 years at that point and the Trump economic policy will have a;ready been in place. If the economy starts to fall, the deficit and debt will go up even more than it's expected to go up because of the new Tax law. And according to the small world or brain of Donald Trump, it will become the Obama deficit and debt.

And I know I'm using the word dictator with Donald Trump loosely. President Trump as much as he would like to be a dictator and have the U.S. Justice Department and White House Office of Legal Counsel, as his personal law firms and lawyers and the Congress as lackeys who are only in office to please their master which is what you see in Russia and China, even Donald Trump as President has real checks and balances in the U.S. Government. The independent Russia investigation is a perfect example of that. But Trump sees himself as a dictator and wants the power to be able to do whatever the hell he wants to protect himself and stay in power and damn the consequences.
Source:The Economist

The Economist: 'America’s Elderly Prisoner Boom'

Source:The Economist- growing old in a California prison.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Thanks to ultra-long sentences, America's 2.3m prisoners are getting older. Under the 'Gold coats' programme in California, younger inmates look after elderly ones... 

From The Economist

A couple of things hit me when I watched this video. One, the fact that America at least at the state level, has moved away from prison industries in too many cases and instead has turned prison into warehouses, where inmates either grow really old there, or are essentially just waiting to die with no real reason to live, even in prison. 

One of the consequences of prison warehouses is that taxpayers get stuck paying for the cost of living of people, especially elderly inmates, who could’ve been working this whole time even in prison. And paying for their own cost of living. Including the lifers and putting money away for their retirement in prison.

The other thing that hit me, was that prisons have become the place where we send all of our difficult and challenging members of society. All of our outsiders, that are guilty of some felony, especially violent felonies, end up in prison. Which makes prisons in America very expensive.

Prison’s, should be for felons, especially violent felons.

Mental hospitals, state hospitals for the criminally insane, should be for criminally insane and mentally handicapped people who are convicted of felonies and are violent.

Jails, should be for people awaiting trial and for small time criminals, especially if they’re doing short sentences.

Halfway houses, should be for convicted felons, who don’t pose a major threat to society. They need either rehab, or learn a trade and do community service. But by in-large are productive people, or can become productive people, who just need a path to make that happen.

Retirement homes and senior homes, should be for seniors, including convicted felons, who can’t take care of themselves. Who pose no threat to anyone other than maybe themselves.

I’m not saying that we should transfer every senior inmate to private senior citizens homes. But we need a senior health care system for our senior inmates, who are just too weak to take care of themselves at this point in their lives, let alone strong enough to hurt innocent people. And set up senior homes outside of prison, for our senior inmates, that could be run by the private sector. That could be paid for by the senior inmates themselves. Based on the money they’ve earned the whole time they’ve been in prison. Instead of sending every single person in America, who poses some challenge to society, or did pose some challenge, to prison.

The Economist: Jailhouse Nation

Source:The Economist Jailhouse Nation.

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with The Economist, that the War on Drugs in America is the biggest contributor to our large prison population. That costs American taxpayers billions of dollars every year. As well as the fact that we send so many non-violent offenders to prison. Shoplifters, car thieves, prostitutes and others, to prison. When everybody involved would be better off if these people were in a halfway house, local jail even and in the case of prostitution, not that I’m recommending prostitution, but we don’t need to lock up people for simply making a living giving sex. Drug addicts, need to be in drug rehab and halfway houses. Not jail, or prison. And that would reduce our prison population dramatically.

Prisons, shouldn’t be the home for the mentally ill either. Even for the criminally insane. We use to have special state hospitals that were secure like prisons, that housed are criminally insane. And for our mentally ill offenders who clearly do pose a real threat to society, but perhaps aren’t career criminals, we should have state hospitals for them. Prisons, should be the last resort when it comes to offenders in America. People who pose real security and economic threats to society. Where we might need to hold them for ten years, or more and try to rehabilitate them there as well. Prisons, should be for violent offenders and economic terrorists. Not small town hoods, who otherwise aren’t very dangerous.

And the other way to cut the American prison population, is for the people who need to be in prison, you work with them inside, whether they are serving life, or not. Especially if they aren’t serving life, so they can get out of prison as soon as they are ready to succeed on the outside. You do that by empowering them and requiring them to finish their education while in prison. Put them to work in prison based on the education that they now have. Pay them for the work that they do so they can pay for their cost of living in prison. Give them whatever counseling and programs that they need to be able to succeed in prison and succeed on the outside.

America, will simply never be Europe, for a whole lot of reasons that not even The Economist knows. We are much freer and more individualistic as a country. We are a lot more diverse, as perhaps the most racially, ethnic and culturally, diverse at least large country in the world. We are the home to Hollywood, where a lot of our criminals get inspired. We also have poverty and single-parent issues that a lot of other developed countries do not have. And we are also so damn big as a country. By far the largest developed country in the world as far as land and population. And culturally with our individualism and Americans wanting to do things for themselves and be able to take care of themselves, we don’t have the pacifist collectivist attitude of Europe. But we could become a country that is even more free with fewer people in prison.

The Economist: The Real Cost of The War on Drugs

Source:The Economist with a piece about the American War On Drugs.

Source:The New Democrat

America, at least at one point and perhaps they still are, was the biggest consumer of narcotics, legal and otherwise, in the world. One reason why you see so many drug dealers, drug lords, drug terrorists in Central America, the Caribbean, Columbia and other places in South America. Because they want to get their dope to the United States. Because they know how much of that Americans consume. I’ve made this point so much, but once you prohibit something, doesn’t mean it goes away. It means it goes underground. Where people can’t see it and find it. Where the only rules that are in place, are made and enforced by drug dealers.

The War on Drugs and drug terrorists, almost destroyed the Republic of Columbia in the 1990s. And they still have issues with their War on Drugs and terrorists down there. Why, because Columbians, other South Americans and Americans, still want their narcotics and want them badly. The War on Drugs, is not a real war, but America has been fighting this so-called war since 1971. Spending trillions of dollars on it and the problems have only been made worst. Just because you threaten to lock someone up for what they do to themselves, especially if they’re addicted to what they’re on, doesn’t mean it goes away. Just means people are now putting their freedom at risk and risking incarceration, to do their drugs.

The real costs of the War on Drugs, is a lot more money on law enforcement and incarceration, that taxpayers have to pay. A lot more Americans in prison for simply consuming drugs and what they’re doing to themselves. People who otherwise could be productive members of society if they weren’t in prison. People, that had they been sent to drug rehab, or a halfway house, instead of prison, could’ve beaten their addiction and been able to move on with the rest of their lives. But now have seen their addiction get worst and are now convicted felons with a prison record. Whose going to have a hard time making it on the outside when they get out. Even if they beat their addiction. So the real cost of the War on Drugs, is immense. And something Americans taxpayers have to pay for everyday.

The Economist: 'What Happened When Portugal Decriminalized Drugs?'

Source:The Economist- The War on Marijuana, coming to an end?

Source:The New Democrat

"For 20 years The Economist has led calls for a rethink on drug prohibition. This film looks at new approaches to drugs policy, from Portugal to Colorado."

From The Economist

I believe what Portugal is saying with their drug decriminalization policy is that narcotics are bad for you, but is locking up people simply for illegal drug possession or illegal drug use is also not only bad for you, but bad for the society as well. That Portugal, is not endorsing the usage of cocaine, meth, or heroin, but they’re saying there are better and more cost-effective ways of dealing with narcotics in this country.

And instead of sending drug addicts and users to prison for simply using narcotics, they send those people to drug rehab. Which frees up jail and prison space for actual criminals. People who pose an actual threat to the security of Portugal.

And hopefully this works, because as bad as the War on Drugs might have been in Portugal, it isn’t a positive thing in any other country. Especially America.

The Economist: 'German-Americans: The Silent Minority'

Source:Ask Ideas- "Proud To Be German American. Happy German-American Day."

Source:The New Democrat

"ON A snow-covered bluff overlooking the Sheboygan river stands the Waelderhaus, a faithful reproduction of an Austrian chalet. It was built by the Kohler family of Wisconsin in the 1920s as a tribute to the homeland of their father, John Michael Kohler, who had immigrated to America in 1854 at the age of ten."

From The Economist

"Museum exhibit at Salem, VA.  About 300,000 German-Americans were designated as "enemy aliens" and 11,000 put into internment camps during WWII, contrary to their rights as U.S. citizens according to the Constitution.  This could happen again to anyone, and in fact is what the USA PATRIOT ACT was set up to do, arbitrary enemy designation, without grand jury indictments or due process, only suspicion from high up in government."

Source:Blue Ridge WV- Concentration camps happened to German-Americans as well, during World War II.

From Blue Ridge WV

I think I completely agree with this article from The Economist that I just read. Which is saying something because I don’t agree with them on everything. I tend to like their information and analysis, but tend to disagree with their solutions. They are a center-right publication after all. But as a German-American myself, as the name Erik Schneider would indicate, an asteroid sized clue there, we do tend to go unnoticed as an ethnic group in America. And I’m not sure if that is because we’ve been in America so long. The eighteen-hundreds for a lot of us, or because we’ve accomplished so much as a people who is goes unnoticed.

The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner, the highest ranking full-time member of Congress and that includes the Senate Pro Tempore and the Vice President of the United States, is a German-American and a proud one. And a distinct one, I mean you might as well paint the German flag on his face, he looks so German. And yet you wouldn’t know it unless you are familiar with the German people and German names and physical characteristics and so-forth. We’ve created so much for this country as far as technology, food, culture, public servants, Dwight Eisenhower for example. And yet we tend to go unnoticed as a people and perhaps get taken for granted.

When Nancy Pelosi became the first Speaker of the House in America back in 2007, she was mentioned as being the first female Speaker and Italian-American Speaker. But when John Boehner becomes Speaker four years later, nothing is mentioned about him being a German-American who also happens to be the Speaker. Same thing with Newt Gingrich back in 1995. Newt was mentioned as being the first Republican Speaker elected since 1953, but not for being a German-American. And again I think this goes to the success of our people that we are expected to do well and accomplish big things. And Americans just aren’t surprised when we do.

The Economist: Richard Davies Interviewing Zanny Minton-Beddoes: Time to Rethink Retirement

Source:The New Democrat

This emphasizes the great need for improving the skills of workers, especially in America which ranks  39th in the world in education.  That 1 in 5 Americans lives in poverty is already  unacceptable.

Our aging population means current and future workers are going to have to work longer and be more productive.  They need to put more money away for their own retirements and be less dependent on the public safety net to provide them needed income when they retire.

Private retirement accounts are an attractive policy option that encourages people to put money,  matched by their employers, away for savings and retirement.  This allows people to finance their own retirements bringing down government costs. 

The Economist: Inequality in America: How to be a True Progressive

Source:The New Democrat

I've mentioned before that I do not qualify as a Progressive, at least from today's popular definition of it, someone who believes in using government to make society better and fairer with new government social programs that are generally run by the Federal Government, but I'm not sure that a lot of today's Progressives qualify as Progressive either with their constant assaults on corporate America and private enterprise and private power along with being so anti-military and law enforcement and not only in favor of the welfare state but also the nanny state, believing that Americans have too much freedom in how they manage their personal lives, with new prohibitionist ideas as they relate to what people eat, drink, smoke, as well as who and how we communicate with each other.

And these are just some of reasons why I call myself a Liberal.  I am a Liberal, at least as far as it is classically defined, but I don't like being associated with big government statists right and left, and today's so-called Progressives are really left-wing statists but not very liberal or progressive and not so much interested in progress.  True Progressives believe in moving forward and using government to make that happen as much as they are interested in growing the size and scope of the central state.

But I do view myself as a Progressive in the sense that I believe in progress and moving forward and even using government to help bring that about. But where I would differ with real Progressives, FDR or LBJ Progressive Democrats, is that I don't believe the Federal Government has all of the answers and therefore shouldn't have all the power.  As a true Liberal, I want to see that power go to the people who need it.  The income gap, as I prefer to call income inequality, is the perfect place to start.

I agree we need a new approach in how we deal with the income gap and having hundreds of programs that are really about subsidizing people in poverty, whether they are working or not, to meet their needs. This is not so much empowering them to meet their needs, which is not the right approach (this is where I agree with The Economist) but scrapping the minimum wage and replacing it with an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit is not the way to go, and this is where I agree with Progressive economist Jared Bernstein on who is an actual Progressive Democrat.

What would happen if this new conservative idea about the EITC were to ever happen is that you would end up transferring money from hard-working middle class Americans and, in a lot of cases, Americans who are just barely middle class, to the wealthy and to employers, because now they wouldn't have to pay the minimum wage and would be able to pay their low-skilled workers wages that are much lower, because these low-skilled workers would get that money back and perhaps more money from middle class tax payers instead of their employers in the form of an expanded EITC.

And this is where both the Earned Income Tax Credit and increasing the minimum wage are both critical and both needed because they would both increase wages for people at the bottom and increase their purchasing power. This is for people who spend all of their money, which drives economic and job growth, because they have no other choice because of how little money they make, but it also encourages people to work and not go on welfare or stay on welfare because they would know they could get more money working than not working.

But this alone doesn't solve the income gap because we need to not only be targeting Americans at the bottom when it comes to the income gap but also people in the struggling middle, who can see the bottom of the economic scale from where they sit, which is why unemployment insurance should be expanded to include back-to-work centers or programs that will help them pay their bills as they receive assistance to help find a good job through education and job training and assistance. Welfare insurance puts people to work and provides educational and job training assistance for workers who collect any form of public assistance.

A mid-term election, especially the one that will affect the last 2 years of the Obama Administration, is not the right time for President Obama to take on his far-left flank with all these new work and education-over-dependency ideas, because he needs these voters behind him and congressional Democrats as they run for reelection and for the House and Senate in 2014, but these are things he could propose in his budget this year, and put on the agenda for the next Congress, whoever is in power, or even if it is divided again.

The Economist: Americas View- ‘Affirmative Action in Brazil: Slavery’s Legacy’

Source:The Economist- looks like freedom in Brazil.

Source:FRS FreeState

“TO SUM up recent research predicting a mixed-race future for humanity, biologist Stephen Stearns of Yale University turns to an already intermingled nation. In a few centuries, he says, we will all “look like Brazilians”. Brazil shares with the United States a population built from European immigrants, their African slaves and the remnants of the Amerindian population they displaced. But with many more free blacks during the era of slavery, no “Jim Crow” laws or segregation after it ended in 1888 and no taboo on interracial romance, colour in Brazil became not a binary variable but a spectrum…

From The Economist 

As a Liberal, I take Dr. Martin L. King’s I have a dream speech that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, seriously. But I apply it to all Americans not saying that Dr. King didn’t but.

Dr. King all the time spoke about and in favor of the U.S. Constitution and how all of those rights applied to all Americans equally. Not just European-Americans, and not just Anglo-Saxons, or Anglo-Saxon males, but every American, including African-Americans. He even spoke favorably of our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) and vision they created for America where every man (meaning every American) would have the same individual and constitutional rights as everyone else.

Dr. King didn’t speak of an America where some Americans would have better or more rights and be treated better or worst then other Americans, simply because of their race, color, or gender. The whole point of the civil rights movement in the first place was the African-Americans weren’t getting the same treatment and equality under law and in society, simply because of their race and color.

There seems to be this attitude on the Left (to be generous) that racism and bigotry shouldn’t be tolerated when it’s applied to certain groups of people. But that it’s okay when it’s applied to others because minorities have suffered in this country because of their race and ethnicity. As well as Caucasian women and that Caucasians as a whole have benefited. But that when racism is applied to majorities, even majority women, it’s okay because it benefits people who’ve been left behind and it’s a small price to pay.

My attitude as a Liberal who wants to live in a colorblind as well as racial blind and ethnic blind society is that we only get there if we create that for ourselves and practice these things and individuals are treated as individuals and not members of groups. That if you want to eliminate racism and other forms of bigotry in this country, the first step is to stop practicing it no matter who it’s supposed to benefit or deny.

If we are going to have an equal protection clause and civil-rights in this country which we do, then they should apply to everyone and that no one should be denied to benefit simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. And no one should benefit from those things even it is only one consideration.

What we need in America instead of affirmative action, is to have strong civil-rights and anti-discrimination enforcement in this country. So people who practice bigotry in this country would pay a steep price for it and it would be doing themselves a financial as well as professional disservice by practicing bigotry and could even cost them their jobs of business and so-forth.

We also need a real public education system in this country so all Americans have access to a quality education who attend public schools and all have the opportunity to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. To the point that schools and employers would be doing themselves a disservice by denying people access to these things because of their race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

The cure for racism in America is not more racism but to eliminate racism and bigotry outright (to paraphrase Black Panther leader Fred Hampton) so it’s no longer practiced. And you do that by cracking down on bigots who practice it and by giving everyone the opportunity to be successful in life so bigotry wouldn’t be a good idea to practice because of the legal and financial consequences that would come from it. But also because of the access to quality talent that schools and employers would lose access to. You don’t defeat racism with different racism, but with civil rights enforcement, education, and equality of opportunity.