C-SPAN: 'President Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Press Statement'

Source:C-SPAN- President William J. Clinton: after signing the 1996 Welfare to Work Law.

Source:The New Democrat

"A very brief statement from President Bill Clinton, about his signature of the 1996 Welfare to Work Law. That passed Congress with a bipartisan vote."

From C-SPAN

The 1996 Welfare to Work Law, I believe is the best part of the Clinton Presidency. Along with moving the Democratic Party back to the Center-Left and making it a national party again. That can win outside of Washington, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the traditional McGovernite and more social democratic areas of the country. Because the Welfare to Work Law, gave millions of Americans who probably only knew Welfare as far as any income that was coming into their homes, the opportunity to go to work. To finish their education and get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work is really about.

The only way to cut poverty in America, is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to move up the economic ladder and become economically self-sufficient. That gets to things like education and job creation, as well as economic development and infrastructure in low-income communities. You can give someone on public assistance the biggest public assistance checks that you possibly can that American taxpayers are willing to subsidize. But as long as people on public assistance are collecting those checks and can’t support themselves without those checks, they’re on Welfare and living in poverty.

So to actually move people out of poverty, you have to empower them to get a good job. And tell them that they can’t stay on Welfare indefinitely and use that time to improve themselves and prepare to become members of the American workforce. That means childcare for their kids, requiring parents who are no longer involved in their kids lives to pay their child support payments. Encouraging employers to hire and train people who are on Welfare. And making education and job training available to people on Welfare so they can finish their education and get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

As President Clinton said many times, the Democratic Party should be the party that is about opportunity, empowerment, liberalization, liberation. Liberalization and liberation being my words, but that we should be a party that is about using government to empower people. Using a limited responsible government to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom who are struggling to work their way up the economic ladder and be able to live in freedom. Like most of the rest of the country. Not using government to make more people dependent. Or saying that people who are low-skilled and have kids can stay on public assistance indefinitely simply because they are low-skilled and have kids. As if they are disabled, or something for those reasons. Welfare to Work, is a big part of that.

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: 'Your Right to Die Isn’t Enough'

Source:The New Republic with an article about euthanasia.

Source:The New Democrat

Euthanasia, is a tough issue for me. We’re not just talking about suicide here, but someone getting legal help from not just someone else to kill them, but getting that help from someone whose sworn to protect life. And do whatever they can to save people who are hurt. And in many cases where their life is at risk and they can die if they don’t get the proper medical treatment.

But I’ve never said that I believe in an absolute Right to Life. Besides, my definition to Right to Life, is a bit different from let's say a devout Catholic, or Evangelical. My Right to Life is about the individual. That they’re responsible for the management of their own life and held accountable for good and bad exactly how they live their life and the impact that they make on others. My Right to Life, or belief in it, is conditional, to be blunt about it. That once a person becomes a person, meaning they’re born, they’re responsible for their own life and can live their own live anyway they choose. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

And because of this as a Liberal, I can say, you what this is your life. How you decide to live is up to you and you’re going to be held accountable for exactly how you live for good, bad an in between. Which is why I can say as a Liberal that I believe physician assisted suicide, should be an option for people who are terminally ill. Or in such bad shape that it’s just not that they’ll never recover, but they’ll be in some type of horrible pain regardless of the amount of medication that they have access for the rest of their lives. But I’m a Liberal, not a Libertarian, or an Anarchist. And I believe there also needs to be rules in place for exactly how physician assisted suicide could be carried out. To protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

One, a patient who is in real bad shape physically and suffering a lot, or not, whether they’ve essentially been given a death sentence from their doctor, or not, would need a doctor’s written consent to be put to death. Doctors shouldn’t be forced to deliver this procedure, especially if they’re against it.

Two, someone who is contemplating physician assisted suicide, needs to either facing a death sentence. Meaning they’ve been told they only have a certain amount of time to live and they’ll be in pain for the rest of their life. Or, they’re such in bad shape that they could theoretically live a natural life in years, but will be in serious pain for the rest of their life.

Three, the patient is in solid mental health and think clearly and knows exactly what they’re doing. That they’re in the best mental health that they possibly can be. So they don’t make a horrible mistake that they’ll never recover from.

Four, they’re 21, or over. Minors, should not only be able to make this decision for themselves, but not even be able to make this decision with parental consent.

Five, that the patient informs their family that they’ve decided to end their life. So they know what’s going on here with their relative. Even if they are not physically and emotionally close with that person.

Again, physician assisted suicide, should be a tough issue for anyone whose either on the fence on it, or thinks it should be an option for people. Because we are talking about ending the life of someone who hasn’t even been accused of hurting an innocent person. But for me at least as a Liberal, the Right to Life belongs to the individual. And they have that right until they lose it. And for me that even includes the right to take that life under the conditions that I’ve laid out.

The New Republic: David Dayen: 'Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley Failed Their Black Lives Matter Test'

Source:The New Republic- Governor Martin O'Malley: at Net Roots Nation in 2015.

Source:The New Democrat

"Jose Antonio Vargas interviews Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Presidential Town Hall featuring Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders."

Source:Net Roots Nation- I guess this is where Governor O'Malley, gets into trouble for saying all lives matter. 

First of all, it's great to hear a politician go to a political group and event and tell them what they don’t want to hear. Especially when they are right and knowing that it might hurt them for speaking the truth. Which is what Martin O’Malley did at Net Roots Nation when he said: “all lives matter”, instead of Black lives matter. Which is what the Far-Left wing of the party wants all Democrats to say. As if it is not obvious enough that Black lives matter. As if anyone is arguing that Black lives don’t matter. Which no offense, is a borderline brain-dead thing to say and imply. Which is one reason why people who are pushing this Black lives matter theme, are on the Far-Left. Senator Bernie Sanders, instead of saying Black lives matter, instead dodged the question and tried to get back on economics.

Again, all lives matter. And to even say that is an idea of how stupid this whole discussion is and some of the people in the whole so-called Black Lives Matter movement are acting. Instead of talking about the challenges and issues that the African-American community are facing and offering solutions to discuss them, they pull out a straw man that no one can disagree with. None of the Democrats running for president are running to be president of this American group, or that one. They’re running to be President of the United States. Which covers the whole nation, even if they win the Democratic nomination, elected President and don’t win every single vote and state in the country. They’ll still be President of the United States. And not the Caucasian President, or African President, Asian President, Latino President, or any other President of one group, or one group.

Republicans and for good reason, all the time get accused of creating wedge issues to divide the country. And try to make Democrats look like they don’t love America as much as Republicans do. And you know the issues. It was crime in the 1970s, followed by abortion, pornography, homosexuality and other issues. But the whole so-called Black Live Matter movement is doing the same thing, but from the Far-Left. And if you don’t say Black lives matter and instead say all lives matter, regardless of race, or color, they imply you don’t care about the African-American community and minorities as much as they do. Which is really stupid and also insulting. Instead of saying Black lives matter, as if people believe they don’t, they should be addressing the issues and offering solutions to those problems.

The Unforgettable Diana Dors

Source:The New Democrat- English Muffin Diana Dors.

Source:The New Democrat

Of the three famous big blonde baby-faced Hollywood bombshells of the 1950s and 1960s, which would be Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield and of course Diana Dors, Diana, or Baby Di as I call her, Diana is my favorite. I just wish she was around a lot longer. At least 25-30 longer. She had it all physically, obviously, but she was also a hell of an actress with a great personality and sense of humor. She reminds me a lot of Shelley Winters physically and personally, as well as Elizabeth Taylor. Women who are great actress’s, but also have great personalities and sense of humor’s and make people around them feel really good.

I also wish that Diana worked in America and Hollywood longer and did more movies here. She wouldn’t have had to live here, but it would’ve been nice to have her in America in longer, because she would’ve had a great career here and become one of the best actress’s of her generation. Because she was such a great actress who could make people believe she was the person she was playing. Who didn’t have any real personal issues around her like being addicted to any drug whatsoever, including alcohol. The only real issues in Diana’s personal life, were the men she was with and the people she hung out with. But she was pretty professional and took care of herself.

I think the only real issue with Diana and her career, is that she really only worked when she wanted to. Had she worked more and been more active, she would’ve had a bigger career, because there would’ve been a lot of good roles for her in good movies. But she was big in the 1950s and take time off in the 1960s and doesn’t come back to America in the 1970s at all, except to do interviews with American media on talk shows, like Merv Griffin. She was someone who made a lot of money early and then spent a lot of it and would come back and work to be able to support herself and live the lifestyle that she wanted. But I don’t believe she is someone who ever believed she had to be in the spotlight and have people thinking about her and talking about her. In order to be happy in life.

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.

Associated Press: Sandy Kozel: Deal Reached Over Iranian Nuclear Program

Source:The New Democrat

From what I’ve seen of the Iranian nuclear deal so far, it looks very good to me. The only issue that I have with it is the part where Iran, can veto, or challenge requests made by weapons inspectors to their program. Or get those requests denied by a third-party. But other than that, this looks like a good deal. We, meaning the international community, the Western developed world, actually gets to inspect their nuclear program and make sure they aren’t, or can’t develop nuclear weapons. Iran, gets sanctions relief on their economic sanctions that have had a devastating impact on their economy.

A question I think that Congressional Republicans, especially Neoconservatives like Senator Tom Cotton have to answer, is that if we don’t negotiate with Iran and get a deal with them, what is the consequence of that. What would happen then is that Iran would get their nuclear arms program anyway. Because not even Neoconservatives, seem to be interested in invading and occupying Iran. I guess we could try to take their program out from the air. But they have underground bases and nuclear plants. And to even attempt that, there would be a new Congressional debate about whether Congress needs to approve those actions, or not. And Congressional Republicans, don’t seem to be interested in authorizing President Obama to walk his dog, yet give him authority to strike another country.

I think now the pressure is on Congressional Republicans to prove that the deal with Iran is a bad one. And see if they’re capable, especially their Neoconservatives, of speaking outside of the partisan talking points and actually show why no deal with Iran is better than this deal. And how they would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons if nothing none is done to stop them. This deal, isn’t about Iranian human rights violations and their support for terrorism. Which is well-known and obvious. But preventing the Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear weapons power. The other sanctions dealing with their human rights abuses and support for terrorists, will always be in place until Iran corrects and changes their behavior.

Alan Eichler: Merv Griffin Show- Diana Dors (1979)

Source:Alan Eichler- Ann Miller and English Muffin Diana Dors, on Merv Griffin in 1979.

Source:The New Democrat

"British bombshell Diana Dors made this rare TV talk show appearance in 1979.  Also on the panel are Ann Miller, Stockard Channing, Lesley-Anne Down, and both Fernando and Lorenzo Lamas."

From Alan Eichler

Source:Dialogues- English Muffin Diana Dors, on Merv Griffin in 1979.

I love it when Diana Dors, first comes to America. Just wish she spent more time here and did more here, because she would’ve had a great career in Hollywood if she wanted it. And not just of been a sex symbol, but someone who was also a hell of an actress and a very versatile as well.

But I also love it when she brings out her personality and her sense of humor. Because she had a lot of both. And physically, she might have been the Marilyn Monroe of Britain. But she was better, at least in the sense that grew up and matured. And just looked as cute as a baby most of her life. But she grew up on the inside and took care of herself. Unlike Marilyn, who acted the way she looked.

Merv Griffin, apparently liked panel discussions and brought on several guests at the same time. And in some cases at least the guests wouldn’t know each other and perhaps not have much in common. Which backfired at least one time that I know of. When he had James Brolin and Dennis Hopper on at the same time. And Brolin, accused Hopper of something to the effect of spilling a lot of garbage. I would’ve been nice had Merv interviewed Diana one-on-one and did a ten-minute interview. Because he was a good interviewer and she was a very interesting person and not just great to look at.

Diana, died in 1984 at I believe the age of 52. So in that sense she lasted longer than both Marilyn, who died at 36 and Jayne Mansfield at 34. And Diana, did 34 films and actually had a pretty good career in length and substance.

But back then even, when the average American and Brit was living into their seventies, to die at 52 when you’re still a middle-age person, is dying while you’re still fairly young. She still looked great at this point and was still baby-faced adorable with the great body and could still turn young men on. And yet she dies just five years later. It would’ve been nice to of had Diana around as long as Elizabeth Taylor, who with all of Liz’s problems in life, made it to 79. Because Diana, is one of the best stars of all-time.