Associated Press: 'Court: California Can't Ban Violent Video Game Sales'

Source:Associated Press- Free speech still alive in the People's Republic of California.

"The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors' rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments. (June 27)"

From the Associated Press

I never got on the video game train (so to speak) or at least the wave that started ten years ago or so. But just because I'm not interested in these games, doesn't give me or government the right to deny other people from playing these games. This is strictly a 1st Amendment and a freedom of choice issue, something that should be left up to marketplace. If these games were considered horrible or disgusting or inappropriate, they wouldn't be nearly as popular and these company's wouldn't be making nearly as much money.

Clearly there's a conservative minority of people, especially the two Justices who dissented in this case and on the Christian Right, who believes these games are horrible, disgusting, dangerous, immoral feel free to throw in your own description. But these are also the same people who speak in favor of personal responsibility and family values and parents should be left to raise their own kids. And that government should stay out of the way in how parents raise their own kids. Fine, guess what, I agree with all of that but that only means something if you stand behind that. Otherwise thats just political rhetoric and a political slogan.

If you don't want your kids playing these games, step up to the plate and don't let them. Don't give them the money to buy them or allow them to play them on their computer or any other device. Censorship is undemocratic and anti-1st Amendment: the 1st Amendment clearly relates to more than just political speech. Thats just been our history, just look at how many censorship laws have been thrown out by our courts as evidence.

Conservatives also speak in favor of the free market, great but here's a case where the free market has decided that these game are appropriate and why these games are doing so well and making so much money. Because the free market the people, has decided these games are good.

Personal responsibility, freedom of choice is just that: they are self-explanatory. If people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. Prohibition especially when it comes to prohibiting how people live their own lives, does not work. Just look at alcohol prohibition and how that worked out and how marijuana prohibition is working today. Regulation is the way to control these things and make them work better so they are safer not prohibition.

Rand W: 'Ted Kennedy On Health Care (1978)'

Source:Randy W- U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy: (Democrat, Massachusetts) on health care reform in 1978. 

"Ted Kennedy Speaking About Health Care In 1978.
Health Care Is A Right Not A Privilege.
It's Time For The Party Of NO To Get On Board And Show Your Allegiance To The American People And Not To Corporate Health Care Providers And Big Drug Companies."

From Randy W

I don't completely agree with Senator Ted Kennedy's approach on health care reform, a single payer system with Medicare for all. I would prefer to move to a health insurance system that France has, with maximize choice for all between private and public options. France's health care system costs them half of what our health care system costs us as far our GDP.

I believe in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 but I would've added a public option as far health insurance reform goes. But one thing that Democrats in the White House and Congress could use right now, is Senator Kennedy's voice in defending Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs, especially at the negotiating table with House and Senate Republicans. Especially since if Senator Kennedy was alive today, he would still be a lead negotiator on entitlement reform. Being that he would still be Chairman of the Health Committee.

I'm a big fan of Senator Tom Harkin the current Chairman of the Health Committee but he doesn't bring the same voice and passion that Senator Kennedy did to these issues. He's a much nicer guy (to put it nicely) and doesn't posses Senator Kennedy's leadership skills. What the final product looks like is important of course but it's the passion the ability to negotiate thats more important I believe. You need that to get the best deal possible and so you don't give up too much.

Thats what Senator Kennedy had and why he was such a great negotiator because he understood that in any negotiation, you have to give up something and accept something you wouldn't normally. Thats the definition of negotiating but it's what you give up and what you get in return, that determines whether it's a good deal or not. Which is what made Ted Kennedy a great legislature, perhaps the best ever in Congress. Which is something Congressional Democrats are missing right now and may pay a price for in the final deficit reduction deal.

James Miller Center: 'President Jimmy Carter- Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention (August 14, 1980)'

Source:James Miller Center- President Jimmy Carter (D, GA) accepting the 1980 Democratic Party nomination for President, in New York.

"President Carter encourages the audience in preparation for the upcoming election."

From the James Miller Center

I don't believe what Democrats are facing going into the 2012 general elections are as bad as they were in 1980 politically. Even though the economy I believe the economy now in 2011 is worst or similar shape as it was in 1980 but hopefully improving by 2012 or in 2012. But the Republican opposition in 2012 is not nearly as good as it was in 1980.

Today's GOP doesn't have a presidential candidate that can unite the entire party. All of their current presidential candidates have issues with at least on faction of the party if not multiple factions of the party. And it looks the best they'll be able to do is nominate someone who agrees with them on most things but has serious issues with the party. So for them to win in 2012, the GOP will be left with a presidential candidate that the party doesn't love and they'll be stuck with swallowing the aspects of the candidate they don't like. Something the GOP has never been good at. Unlike in 1980 with Ronald Reagan where the had a presidential nominee that united the entire party.

But even with the weaker opposition that democrats face in 2012 from the GOP, they still have their own issues. That if they don't resolve will lead to another Republican presidency going into 2013 and with that almost certainly another Republican Congress. Which as a Democrat myself, is a scary thought. The Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party, (the Democratic Socialist faction of the party) that had a lot to do with putting Barack Obama in the White House, is clearly unhappy with the President. To the point where they've called President Obama another George W. Bush, which as a Democrat myself I find insulting. Where they've even flirted with running their own candidate for President, like Representative Dennis Kucinich.

This is the faction that didn't bother to vote in the 2010 mid terms, a big reason why Democrats lost the House. And if the President is unable to bring these people to the polls and support him, no matter how he does with Independent voters, he won't get reelected President.

"United we stand, divided we fall" is something that Democrats need to to remember going into 2012. Because when they are united they tend to do very well and win. Look at 2008, 1996, 1992, 1976, 1964, 1960. But when they are divided, they usually get whipped, look at 1984, 1980, 1972.

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show- Ayn Rand: 'Liberty vs. Statism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist author Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959.

"Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand regarding socialism and individual liberty." From Liberty Pen"

From Liberty Pen

If you’re a Liberal such in my case, or a Libertarian/Objectivist in Ayn Rand’s case, you believe in individual liberty. That the people have the right to essentially govern themselves. Now, my approach to liberty compared with Ayn Rand’s, is much different, but our objectives are the same.

Ayn Rand, is exactly what a Classical Libertarian is: keep government completely out of the economy. No taxation, regulation, or a safety net coming from the government. I however, believe that government has a role in not regulating how people live their own lives, but how they interact with each other. To protect innocent people from those who would hurt them, but not try to protect people from themselves.

If you’re a Socialist, you essentially believe that the country is in it together and that no one should have a lot more than others. Even if they created that material wealth on their own. And that government should heavily tax those who make a lot. For one, to give to those who don’t have much.

And that government essentially knows best in what the people need to live and should be the one providing those service for the people. That government’s role is essentially to spread the wealth throughout society through high taxes. But not just high taxes on high earners, but everyone in general.

If you’re an authoritarian, or statist, let's take Communists for example, you essentially believe that government’s role is to protect people from themselves, but also to protect people from the government. And that power comes and rests with the government. That if people have liberty, they won’t know what to do with it, which will cause instability. This is essentially the argument that the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian Theocratic Islamists have made since they’ve been in power.

Despite all the stereotypes that Liberals have now about being about the welfare state and centralized power, especially coming from the right-wing and being bought in by the mainstream media, that’s really not what liberalism is about.

Liberalism, is not about the welfare state, centralized power and government control. Those things relate to socialism and statism. Liberalism, is about individual liberty and equality of opportunity for the individual. Liberalism, has more in common with libertarianism like in Ayn Rand’s case, but different from libertarianism and socialism. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

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

G. Stolyarov: The Principles of Liberalism

Source:G. Stolyarov- A liberal democratic value that liberal democracy is all about: the right for individuals to be free.

"Mr. Stolyarov was recently asked to attempt a formulation of ten crucial principles of classical liberalism, the worldview which animated the American Revolution, the European Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the libertarian revival of free-market thought in the mid-to-late twentieth century. Classical liberalism - even when it is not explicitly espoused - still has considerable residual influence on the political and economic institutions of the Western world and is having an increasing impact outside the West as well."

From G. Stolyarov

What is liberalism and what is it about? The subject of this piece. Well at least in America and I'm not talking about how it's stereotyped today, but back in the day liberalism was thought to be about freedom, for the people to live their own lives. And that government was there to protect people from being hurt by others. But not to dictate how people (meaning free adults) live their own lives.

Perhaps encourage moral, healthy behavior like exercising for example and eating well and perhaps discourage unhealthy behavior. Like with tobacco and alcohol, taxes as examples. But that the people had the freedom to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom.

That people meaning (free adults) had the right to be jerks (for lack of a better word) as long as they weren't physically hurting or threatening others with their jerkery. And that people meaning (free adults) had the right to even be stupid as long as their stupidity wasn't hurting anyone else physically.

To use as example: Liberals tend to be for legalizing but with regulation and taxation of marijuana. That it should be legal but that it should be treated like alcohol and tobacco and not be encouraged.

That people could own firearms even support the 2nd Amendment, but that people can't shoot innocent people with their firearms.

That a role of government was to protect people from the harmful actions of others, but not try to protect people from themselves. Liberalism and liberal, both come from the word liberty, meaning freedom, not socialism. (Democratic or otherwise) Liberalism is about maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. As well as equality of opportunity.

Liberalism is not economic justice, which is another way of saying equality of results. Meaning that everyone should have the same wealth. Even if some people are more productive than others.  Which is a socialist value, two different things. As much as the Far-Right and even mainstream Conservatives like to try to tie liberalism as a socialist Ideology and in America trying to make America more like Europe and the Right have been very successful in doing that the last thirty years, the right-wing is simply dead wrong. Whether they realize it or not.

Liberalism has more in common with libertarianism or conservative libertarianism, than it does with socialism. (Democratic or otherwise) There are actually several definitions of liberal.

The political definition of liberal is one who believes in liberty and a defender of liberty, not big government and the welfare state. But there's a more common one meaning more or a lot: "I want a liberal amount of food or water, vacation time", whatever the thing is. That I believe people get confused with especially when they are talking about the role of government, a fascinating topic for me as a blogger.

When someone says they want a liberal amount of government, meaning they want a lot of government, or that a government program is not liberal enough, meaning it's not big enough, it doesn't spend enough money, that person automatically gets classified as a liberal. When in fact they might just be someone and in a lot of cases this is true, someone who believes in big government and wants socialism.

A Socialist (democratic or otherwise) who wants a big government program created or made bigger. A lot of American politicians today who get classified as liberal because they want liberal sized government programs. Are actually not very liberal in many cases, but they are Socialists and tend to be Democratic Socialists. The Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich's of the World. Major believers in the welfare state and democratic socialism.

To give you another example that I know you're just dying to hear: when developing countries are talking about moving their economy's from a command and control economy, meaning the State owns the means of production of society which is a Marxist-Socialist economy and they are talking about liberalizing the economy, meaning opening it up with privatization and giving the people economic freedom.

Economic liberty. the ability of one to set their own course in life and not be dependent on government for their daily survival because they now have the ability to take care of themselves and get a good job in the private sector, they're talking about economic liberalization. Meaning capitalism and taking power away from the state and giving more people to the people over their own economic affairs.

Capitalism is basically liberal economics, because you give the people economic liberty to take care of themselves and not be dependent on government to survive financially. And you're taking a risk that they won't mess it up. (To put it mildly) When you make a liberal investment, you're making a big investment and generally taking a lot of risk as well. Which would make socialist economics conservative economics, in a sense.

Conservatism has a lot of diversity in it. Because you keep the power with the state and really limit the ability if any for people to take risks on their own. Low-risk is very conservative. A low-risk investment is a conservative investment. So when you hear someone especially a politician or public official, called or is viewed as a liberal, you should have an idea of why they are being labeled that. Because it could mean that they believe in individual liberty like myself which why I'm a liberal. Or it could mean they just want a lot of something. A liberal amount of whatever the something is.

Passionate Patriots: '1968 DNC Nightmare in Chicago'

Source:Passionate Patriots- A look at Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago. 

"Chaos before Hubert Humphrey's nomination sets the modern standard for a harmful convention."

From Passionate Patriots 

"Chaos before Hubert Humphrey's nomination sets the modern standard for a harmful convention."  

"In the wake of the April 4 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Black communities rose up in more than 100 cities and towns. Opposition to the Vietnam War, which would ultimately claim millions of lives in Southeast Asia, grew, as did U.S. casualties. Of the more than 58,000 Americans who died from 1956 to 1975, more than 14,000 were killed in 1968. In April of that year, police savagely attacked anti-war protesters in Berkeley, Calif., and Chicago, giving the country a preview of what was to come August 26 – 29, when the Democratic Party held its national convention in Chicago."  

Source:In These Times- Chaos in Richard Daley's Chicago. 

From In These Times

The Democratic Party cost themselves the presidential election of 1968 and a chance to win the White House for a third straight time and 8-10 presidential elections, going back to 1932 with FDR. To go along with another Democratic Congress because of how divided they were on the Vietnam War.

A lot of that can be blamed on President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, but this can also be blamed on the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party that was anti-war, period. Even when we are attacked and they can take their anti-war feelings too extreme at times, as we saw with the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention.

The New-Left in the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve all the blame here. The Chicago Police didn’t do a very good job of handling the situation either. And of course Richard Nixon being the master politician that he was, jumped all over on the Democratic division and moved himself to be a unity candidate. Which of course he wasn’t.

By the time President Nixon left office in August of 1974, America if anything was even more divided. 1968 was a crazy year with a lot of bad for the country with some good in it. But all bad for the Democratic Party.

A year where President Johnson announced he wasn’t running for reelection as President because of how unpopular he was. But even had he run for reelection, he would’ve had a very hard time getting renominated by a party that had moved away from him. And had moved into an anti-war socialist direction. That wanted to bring all of our troops home from Vietnam and use that money to build the country.

1968 was also a crazy year for Democrats who once they moved away from LBJ, the Far-Left flank of the party went searching for their own candidate to take on the GOP in the fall. First it was Senator Eugene McCarthy until Senator Robert Kennedy declared his candidacy for President. Then they threw all of their support behind him up until he was assassinated in June of 68. And then of the party went behind Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment wing of the party.

But some New-Left support went back to Senator McCarthy, as well as Senator George McGovern. Another candidate from the Far-Left flank of the party. As it turned out even though 1968 might have looked like a fluke, it clearly wasn’t. Because in 1972 Democrats had similar issues. They were disorganized, didn’t have a clear leader with more divisive presidential primary’s and once again the Far-Left flank deciding who the Democratic presidential nominee would be Senator George McGovern taking on an establishment GOP Candidate President Nixon and losing 49 States in a landslide.

When the Democratic Party is united it tends to win and do very well. Because it's bigger than the Republican Party and represents more people in the country. But when it’s divided like it was in 68, 72, 80 and 84, it loses very bad. Because a faction of their party doesn’t show up to the polls to vote. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

AP: Raw Video: U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner- 'Resigns in Wake of Sexting Scandal'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (Democrat, New York City) resigning from office because of his sexting habit.

"Embattled New York Rep. Anthony Weiner is resigning from Congress, saying he cannot continue in office amid the intense controversy surrounding sexually explicit messages he sent online to several women. (June 16)" 

From the Associated Press

Today U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat from New York, New York City to be specific, stepped up to the plate and hit a home Run. (Sorry for the baseball analogy for you non-sports fans) And did the right thing by resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. 

As I’ve said before it’s not what Representative Weiner did that was wrong with his own private time, (well, his wife might disagree with that) and yes members of Congress do have private time, they are not always at work, just look at the U.S. Senate, (I rest my case: when do they ever work.)

It’s not what Representative Weiner did with his free time that’s the problem with me and a lot of other people. As a Liberal I could care less with what people do with their free time. With what Representative Weiner did is between him and his wife and their family if they have one yet. 

It’s the consequences of the Weiner's (you will excuse me) actions that are the problem, the fact of how public he alone made them by sharing them on Twitter and professional status that’s the problem. We are not talking about Joe Jones truck driver. (Not that there’s anything wrong with Joe Jones truck driver) 

We are talking about a U.S. Representative and a member of Congress, a constitutional officer and a public official. The fact in today’s information age, what people do in public especially public officials, the whole world literally gets to see it. And in a way is all of our business whether that’s the right thing or not. 

Because of the fact that we all have the ability to weigh in on it. As I’m doing now by blogging about it, but blogging is not the only way to weigh in on stories like this. WordPress, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace go down the line. And that’s enough plugs on my part, no wait I forgot my personal favorite Blogger.

Because of Representative Weiner’s irresponsible actions to post in public his affairs so to speak, the U.S. House especially the Democratic Leadership and the rest of the Democratic Caucus, are forced to deal with it in one way or the other. Either take questions about it, or take official actions, which is apparently what the House as a whole was preparing to do. Which is to file and investigation into the Weiner story. (The Big Weiner story) Politically this would be bad for everyone, House Democrats for having to deal with this story with hearings and investigations as well as the House GOP.

But it would be a huge distraction especially for the House Democratic Leadership who as of right now are in good position of retaking the majority in the House in 2012. And pushing their own agenda once they were to retake the majority. Thanks to House GOP mishandling of Medicare back in April, but the House Democratic Leadership were already breaking records in fundraising and recruiting candidates to take on the 62 Republican freshmen from 2010.

And the House GOP Medicare fiasco just reinforced that, but with the Weiner story, instead of concentrating on their own agenda they have to concentrate on Representative Weiner instead. So I’m glad Representative Weiner stepped up to the plate today and did the right thing and stepped down from office. Which I hope will bring and end to this story, which I think will continue, but at least he did his part to close this ugly chapter.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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