Washington Post: Catherine Rampell: 'Limousine Liberalism's Good Works'

Source:The Washington Post- Liberal investor and billionaire Warren Buffett.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Is it hypocritical for a really, really rich person to object to rising inequality?

I’ve been thinking about this in light of the derision the Clintons are facing for charging six-figure speaking fees while pontificating about income polarization and the plight of the poor." 

From The Washington Post 

"What is LIMOUSINE LIBERAL? What does LIMOUSINE LIBERAL mean? LIMOUSINE LIBERAL meaning.

Limousine liberal and latte liberal are pejorative American political terms used to illustrate hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status; including calls for the use of mass transit while frequently using limousines or private jets, claiming environmental consciousness but driving fuel inefficient sports cars or SUVs, attacking income inequality while being wealthy themselves, or ostensibly supporting public education while actually sending their children to private schools." 

Source:Audio Pedia- Classical Liberals, who talk like leftists.

From Audio Pedia

I'm sick and tired (and that is putting it mildly) of hearing people especially rabid partisan right-wingers claim that Liberals hate the wealthy and people with money and hate capitalism and private enterprise. I mean for anyone who actually looks at who has a lot of the money in the country, a lot of those people are Liberals and someone of them even further left than that. I mean seriously what is a so-called Limousine Liberal? A wealthy Liberal, but a Liberal who also cares about the poor.

As a Liberal myself people should be able to make as much money as their skills and production will allow for them to make and what people are willing to pay them for their services. And that includes everyone regardless of political and ideological affiliation. Now what separates me as a Liberal from Libertarians and hardcore Conservatives is that I believe everyone should pay taxes based on how much they make and that includes the rich. You take advantage of the opportunities you were given living in this great country, you should pay for them as well so those opportunities are available for other Americans as well.

I don't have a problem with rich Liberals, but people who are supposed to care about the poor and the income gap, but who do little or nothing about it on their own. And hangout with and associate with people who they claim are the reasons for the income gap in America. Cheerleaders lets say for the poor who say they are on the side of the disadvantage, but don't do a damn thing about it that could actually help those people. And essentially attack the rich to further their own nest. Which I believe was one of the points that Catherine Rampell was making in her column in the Post today. That is where I agree with her.

Again as a Liberal economic freedom is great and we should all be able to make as much money as we are capable of making based on what we bring to the table economically and professionally. But economic freedom shouldn't be based on who you were born to or who your parents know. But it should be for everyone in the sense that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in economic freedom in America. And that doesn't come with higher public assistance checks, but with quality education for all starting at K-12 and even before that for all of our students. And empowering low-income adults to finish their education so they have the skills they need to get themselves a good job.

The New Republic: Issac Chotiner: 'James Garner Obituary, Actor Dead at 86'

Source:The New Republic- Jim Garner as Jim Rockford, on The Rockford Files.

Source:The New Democrat

If you are a subscriber to The New Republic, you can read Issac Choitner's article about James Garner at The New Republic.

In an age where we are so dominated by social media and celebrity culture and by people who want to be their favorite celebrities and live their lives and even people who later become celebrities that want to live the lives of their favorite celebrities, we had James Garner who personified the expression, "keeping it real". 

The only person that James Garner ever wanted to be in life was James Garner. Because that is the only person he knew how to be and was so confident in his own skin that James Garner was the only person he wanted to be. Or at least that is how he came off in his roles. Whether young people considered him to be awesome or whatever or not.

Garner represents the opposite of what we generally get from Hollywood today of a lot of cookie-cutter characters, actors and roles that are trying to be exactly like or very similar to whatever is considered to be awesome or hot at the time. He was a real genuine actor, the genuine article, an actor's actor and not a clone of whatever is supposed to be hot at that time. But a great actor, a true professional who did his work and played his roles the way they should be played by him. And not try to play them based on whatever is considered hot at the time.

James Garner played his role in a charming, professional real way where you got to see Garner in the character he was playing. You almost in a way got to him playing himself. It was almost as if he wasn't acting but playing a character as if he was the character and the personality, intelligence and humor that he brought to all of his roles came from him. Instead of the director feeding him things to say and to do. You didn't do that with Jim Garner. You gave him the role and script and he would study those things and delivered his part as himself. 

Jim Garner wasn't a great comedic actor, but a great actor who was very funny simply at being himself and bringing what he had to those roles. The Rockford Files is not a comedy. But a crime drama, a detective show. But the thing is it is a very funny show and his detective movies were funny as well even though they were supposed to be serious. Because that is the kind actor Garner was and the directors of these shows and movies Maverick being another example of that wanted to bring that side out of him his charm and humor. To go along with his intelligence and personality.

The actors that remind me of Jim Garner pre-Garner would be Cary Grant. And after Garner would be Mel Gibson and George Clooney. Again none of these actors are pure comedic actors in the sense of most if not all of their roles are comedic roles. But these are all very funny intelligent actors that bring their personality and humor to all of their roles. So the directors of these movies and shows in Garner's case would almost be stupid not to use these other gifts that these actors had even if their roles and the movies are supposed to be serious.

Cary Grant, Mel Gibson and George Clooney are all real and people who are very confident in their own skin. Self-confident actors who all have no interest in being anyone other than themselves. And all of these guys including Jim Garner could've all made great livings as comedians or comedic actors. But since they are all great actors as well as very funny actors they all have the ability to play serious roles and yet bring their humor and realness to all of their roles and that is what we see from them. And the type of actor that Jim Garner was. And he will be deeply missed especially with how cookie-cutter and repetitive that Hollywood has become.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Bill O'Reilly: Downright Sane Next to Laura Ingraham'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur: not exactly a spokesperson for sanity.

Source:The New Democrat

“Bill O’Reilly is pegging Laura Ingraham’s opinion of using mass deportation to address illegal immigration as a “draconian” idea that would “destroy the Republican Party.”

From The Young Turks 

I disagree with Cenk Uygur on at least one thing here: Bill O’Reilly is not that much of a radical, or Tea Party radical on immigration either for political reasons, or in general. He is actually in favor of some type of legal status for the 10-15 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Cenk seems to think that is just for political reasons. Fine, but O’Reilly makes a good point here that he shared with Laura Ingraham (who was a roommate of Michele Bachmann and Ann Coulter at the nuthouse) when O’Reilly said that: “if the GOP takes this draconian approach towards illegal immigrants, they’re done.”

The reason why O’Reilly says that because he’s read the polls and sees the changing demographics. Today’s Republican Party is an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male party that is located primarily in the South and to a certain extent in the Midwest. And rural areas in the Mountain West. With the libertarian-right that doesn’t have much influence over the GOP Leadership when it comes to policy at least as it relates to social issues, immigration and foreign policy.

The GOP is not even a Caucasian party even though Anglo-Saxons are Caucasian, but an Anglo-Saxon party with other non-Protestant Caucasian ethnics tending to be Democrats or Independents. The Christian-Right Tea Party base in the GOP want to keep the GOP the way it is at all costs even if that means everyone else becoming Democrats. So instead of looking for ways to reach out to their non-traditional base of the party and the elected officials in their back pockets look for ways to prevent non-Republicans from voting, or even coming into the country, they pass bogus (to be nice) Voter ID laws and mass-deportations are a couple of examples of that.

If the GOP Leadership tries to do what Laura Ingraham suggested that they do in this video and they do it before the elections this year, we’ll see Democrats win back the House and hold the Senate. Why, because that would bring the Latin-American vote out for Democrats who normally do not vote in large numbers in mid-terms voting for Democrats. It would probably bring African-Americans out to vote as well again another population that doesn’t tend to vote heavy in mid-terms. Bill O’Reilly is smart enough to understand that, Laura Ingraham is off of her medication apparently and doesn’t get it. 

Libra 2509: Tina Turner- 'I Don't Wanna Fight'

Source:Libra 2509- Tina Turner's: "I don't wanna fight" 

Source:The New Democrat

"Written by Billy Lawrie/Lulu & Steve Duberry.
Published by Fairwood Music (UK) Ltd & Chrysalis Music Ltd.

Tina Turner at her best,truly classic song."

From Libra

Tina Turner saying that: "It is time to move on and that I wish you the best. But I'm done and moving on with my life while I still can. Because I can't take the fighting no more and want to have a life for myself". 

This is the  ultimate breakup song from the ultimate singer and musical artist at least when it comes to singing from her heart and from real-life. And not needing to be able to think of things to say, or make things up. Because Tina sings from real experiences as this song was about. 

If you're familiar with the R&B group Boyz To Men who were a hit group in the early and mid 1990s, you'll be familiar with the song End of The Road. Which is a song about a guy who is not ready to break up with his girlfriend even though they were going through a rough stretch.

I Don't Wanna Fight is the complete opposite of End of The Road. Tina is saying it's time to move on and she doesn't want to fight anymore and trying to make that clear in a very respectful but honest way. Whoever said "honesty is the key", knew what they were talking about. 

J.P. Green: Public Wants Supreme Court Reform

Source:The New Democrat

Reforming the U.S. Supreme Court is something that I've been thinking about for five years now which is also when I started blogging. And is something I take very seriously especially considering how important the Supreme Court is where it can essentially kill bills on it's own and can practically rewrite legislation on their own. By saying "we accept this part of the law, but this is what must go. And if you reform this part of the law, we'll accept it later on".

This is not about 'judicial activism'. I mean seriously judicial activism is something most of us can probably define either on the Right or Left. Which is laws that are written from the bench. Meaning judicial rulings that change the meaning and effects of laws. But as U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham has said Republican from South Carolina no moderate by any real definition. "Judicial activism are judicial rulings that you disagree with". Which is sort of a simplistic definition, but the Senator is correct. Because when one side loses they tend to claim judicial activism pretty quickly.

We live in a country of over three-hundred and ten-million people with fifty-states. We have a bicameral Congress with five-hundred and thirty-five members in total from the House and Senate. Yet we have a Supreme Court that in a lot of ways is just as powerful as Congress and even the President in some cases, but they only have nine members including the Chief Justice. Where none of the states have a representative on the court as far as representing them. And where they all have lifetime appointments and never have to reapply for a job regardless of the job they do and all live off of the taxpayers dime.

I'm not looking for a democratic Supreme Court and to turn them into official elected politicians. I'm not even looking for time limits as far as how long someone can serve on the Supreme Court. What I want to do is make the Supreme Court accountable to the people it serves which are the people who pay their salaries. As well as more representative to the country it serves in. Again not talking about making it an elected body, but increasing the size of the Court and holding the Justices accountable to the people.

So here is what I would do. Have fifty Justices one for each state. As well as perhaps some type of delegate for the U.S. territories, but perhaps without full voting power. The Chief Justice and their deputy would be an at-large member. And there would be a new position representing the opposition or minority on the Court as well with certain duties and responsibilities. That would lead the opposition in representing the opposing view and alternative when there is a clear partisan divide.

Each U.S. Justice would be their U.S. Justice from their state and get to rule on which cases from their state would make it to the floor of the U.S. Supreme Court with the other Justices weighing in. The President still appoints each Justice, but that Justice would now serve a six-year term if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And then have to be reappointed and reconfirmed by the Senate again to stay on the Court. Instead of getting to stay on the Court indefinitely.

Again not looking or interested and would oppose any attempt to make U.S. Justices democratically elected politicians. Because the Supreme Court deals so much with the U.S. Constitution itself and Justices aren't lawmakers or executives, but judges of law and the constitutionality of them. What I want to do is to make them a lot more accountable for the jobs they do and allow for the people through their U.S. Senators to decide if they deserve to keep their job and hold them accountable.

VOA News: 'Congress to Focus on US Border Crisis'

Source:VOA News- John Cornyn (Republican, Texas) Assistant Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Source:The New Democrat

"Clues could emerge this week whether America's politically-divided Congress will approve funds requested by President Barack Obama to address a surge of immigrants illegally crossing the southwestern U.S. border.  VOA's Michael Bowman reports, Obama wants nearly $4 billion to hold and more quickly process tens of thousands of children arriving primarily from Central America, and to boost federal resources at America's long border with Mexico." 

From VOA News

At some point Congressional Republicans are going to have to decide if they want to solve the Texas border crisis, or keep it going to use it against President Obama and use it as an issue during an election year as part of their grand scheme to add to their House majority and win back the Senate. They can't have it both ways because if the crisis is actually resolved, then their goes a political issue for them. But if they keep it alive then they can claim that "President Obama is not enforcing immigration law and securing the border".

Take the Tea Party out of the equation in Congress and this is a fairly easy issue to resolve. Texas Governor Rick Perry calls up the Texas National Guard to secure the border and prevent violence from happening down there and to prevent further smugglers from entering the country. Governor Perry says he wants to do this, but so far has failed to act and has instead backed conspiracy theories that "President Obama not only caused the situation down there, but did it on purpose".

Again without the Tea Party perhaps Congress comes together and passes a bill for the extra funding to deal with the illegal immigrants at the border last week. Because the House and Senate would've acted responsibly and saw the crisis down there and decided we need to do something about this. Doesn't mean they would've taken the Obama Administration's bill as written. Perhaps they would've amended it, but they would've passed something real that the President probably signs.

The New Republic: Bryce Covert: 'How to Equalize Female Compensation'

Source:The New Democrat

Equal pay for equal work makes sense to me as a Liberal as long as it is exactly that. Meaning Joe and Sally who work at a law firm or a bank do the same exact job and are equally productive and are both paid well and the same for that job. But if they have the same job, but Joe brings in more clients as well as more business as an associate attorney, than shouldn't Joe make more money than Sally since he is more productive? And vice-versa if Sally is more productive than Joe, shouldn't she make more money than Joe since she brings in more business to the law firm even if they have the same position?

There is nothing wrong with equal pay for equal work as long it is exactly that. The problem that I have with people who push this idea and want more government interference here is that they seem to have this idea that women should get paid exactly what men do for the same job. Even if the man is more productive and brings in more business to the company. And that is where I draw the line and if we want a gender-neutral society, (and I'm not sure radical feminists and their supporters do) than gender really shouldn't a consideration at all when it comes to compensating workers. But instead we should be compensating workers for what they bring to the company their personal and professional qualifications.

What we should be doing as a society is making quality education K-12 college and even beyond college universal for everyone regardless of income and the income of parents. So every American regardless of gender, race or ethnicity can get themselves the skills they need to be successful in life. And allow for them to make as much money as their skills and production will allow for them. Even if they are making a hell of a lot of money and a hell of a lot of more money than men or women. Because their production and the job they do calls for them to make all of that money. Not paying men and women equally even if one is more productive than the other.