Kire Schneider Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Father of American Liberalism

Friday, November 17, 2017

The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Source: The Independent Institute-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

What Socialists don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism, is that Libertarians have this inane idea (according to Socialists) that people should be allowed to make a good living and then be able to live off of those rewards. The fruits of their labor, to sound like a cheeseball.

What the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists (who voted for Donald Trump) don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism is that Libertarians have this crazy idea (according to the Christian-Right) that people have property rights and that extends to their homes and their bodies. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, short of hurting innocent people. Even if that offends the religious and moral values of the Christian-Right.

What I don't like about the Libertarian-Right, well their a few things and I guess I could name them all. But they claim to be against big government and government interference and yet they tend to sound more like they're anti-government all together. That they see America as some deserted island where there's almost no evidence of life and all of these people show up all the sudden and over the years and create a new society short of having any government.

The so-called Anarcho-Libertarians, seem to believe that arresting suspects as part of a criminal investigation, is somehow a form of kidnapping. That if someone wrongs you its up to that person to get justice for themselves. Instead of relying on a law enforcement department to handle that for you. Because if we have public law enforcement and government, that would require taxes to fund those agencies. That putting convicted murderers, to use as an example who are actually guilty of murdering the people they were convicted for, that putting them in prison for their crimes, somehow violated the murderer's rights. Someone who believes that comes from another planet and perhaps is just on Earth for a visit. Perhaps to see what the real world looks like.

Conservative-Libertarians like the Barry Goldwater's from back in the day, Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress today, P.J. O'Rourke, those Libertarians I can respect, because they're not Anarchists, but Libertarians. They want a government limited to only doing for the people what we can't do for ourselves. And not messing around in other countries affairs. And also they sound like sane intelligent people who base their politics from this crazy word called reason. And not sounding like escaped mental patients, who've been on nothing but marijuana and alcohol, since they fled from the institution.

And I could also talk about how conspiratorial Libertarians tend to be and how they resemble the Socialist-Left in America and how dovish they are and blaming Lyndon Johnson for the JFK assassination. Libertarians are supposed to hate Socialists and socialism, and yet they sleep in the same bed at the same time with Socialists when arguing about all of these conspiracy theories. Like the JFK assassination, but arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and I could go on. Just look at Alex Jones website if you want more.

Or the antisemitism and even racism that Libertarians have expressed against non-Europeans in America and how now a faction of the Libertarian-Right is now part of the Alt-Right. The Stefan Molyneaux's and others who claim to be Libertarians, but have argued that immigration is somehow a threat to the European-American culture. As well as some Libertarians arguing at least in the past and again something they have in common with the Socialist-Left in America and people like socialist author and writer Noam Chomsky, that America is largest terrorist state in the world and perhaps the only international terrorist organization in the world.

As a Liberal I'm all about (to use a cliche from the 2000s) getting and keeping big government out of my wallets and bedroom. The whole notion of being an adult (who is not currently incarcerated) is that you get to make your own personal and economic decisions, but then have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We don't need a national, or even state, or local, religious leader or nanny statist, babysitting free adults.

So again, I respect the Rand Paul's Jeff Flake's, Ron Johnson's, Justin Amash's, and others in Congress. These are all Republicans by the way in the Senate and House. But the Alt-Right that is part of the Libertarian-Right and the anarcho wing of the Libertarian-Right, they can sound just as crazy as the Socialist-Left. Perhaps as if they did time with them in an institution. And when the crazies become the faces of your movement, your movement loses credibility and the ability to be taken seriously in American politics.
The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Friday, November 10, 2017

Politics & Prose: Mark Bray- ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Source: Politics & Prose-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

If you're going to label yourself anti-fascists, then at the very least that means you're implying that you're fascists. That you don't believe in fascism and that you believe in free speech and freedom of thought. That people who disagree with you and even have beliefs that may offend you, have the same right to believe what they believe and say what they want, as people you respect and agree with. People that you consider to be political allies. And that you're not going to try shut up speech and speakers, simply because you disagree with them, or are even offended by them.

If ANTIFA really were ant-fascists and opposed not just Nationalists, but Christian-Nationalists, Christian-Theocrats, Neo-Nazis, all on the Far-Right, but Communists and other Socialists on the Far-Left, who don't believe people who they disagree with and are offended by have the same right to speak and believe that they do, but believed these political factions have the same right to free speech as people that agree with them meaning ANTIFA, then I could probably respect them. As a Liberal I love free speech and probably would even consider myself to be a free speech fundamentalist. But not just for people who share my liberal democratic values. But for people who are way to left of me like Communists who are part of ANTIFA and people who are to the right me. Conservative-Libertarians on the Center-Right and Christian-Nationalists and Neo-Nazis on the Far-Right.

But that is not what ANTIFA is about. They call themselves anti-fascists even though they believe in fascism and to use fascism to shut up Far-Right speakers and political activists, that they don't like, disagree with, and are even offended by. ANTIFA are hypocrites at best. They are like so-called Conservatives who claim to hate big government, but are only talking about big government as it relates to taxes, spending, centralization, that has to do with the economy. But leave out that they actually want big government in people's personal lives. And tell people what they can and can't do in their homes and want consensual activities between adults should be legal or not. ANTIFA believes in using fascism to shut down and eliminate what they call fascism. So a more accurate name for this group would be ANTIFA-INO. Anti-Fascists In Name Only, because that is what they are.
Politics & Prose: Mark Bray- ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Friday, November 3, 2017

A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Source: A&E-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I doubt I'm the only person who has done this but for the last 10-20 years or so but I've been wondering why a somewhat normal seeming man like David Berkowitz would decide to go out and simply murder people in New York City or anywhere else. Not to look for justification for those murders and of course there are no justifiable murders. Murder by definition- the intentional taking of innocent human life by definition is a crime. The worst crime you could commit against anyone. Calling a murder justifiable would be like calling a cheeseburger a hot dog, a slice of pizza a peanut butter sandwich. Its simply not believable on its face.

But I've been wanting to know why would a somewhat innocent looking and normal intelligent man who had a good job and was able to support himself even if he was somewhat lonely and isolated, why would this person go out and decide to murder as many 10-20 innocent people and perhaps more. What would drive a normal productive man to go out and murder all of those innocent people for no apparent reason and why after being found sane and able to stand trial for his murders how would a serial murderer like David Berkowitz (the self-proclaim Son of Sam) avoid the death penalty. The death penalty is for people who murder multiple people and get some pleasure from that.

Again, this doesn't justify what David Berkowitz did and I' not anti-military or even anti-war, but David Berkowitz joined the U.S. Army right after high school in the early 1970s and discovered early on that he was very good with guns. He wasn't even in the Vietnam War but instead was sent to South Korea to join the forces there that was protecting the South from Communist North Korea. I believe Berkowitz discovered that he was good with guns and good at shooting people and perhaps even discovered that he enjoyed doing it. He gets an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1974 and comes back to New York City where he grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and discovers that he's alone and doesn't fit in where he grew up.

What the Son of Sam means to me and I'm obviously not David Berkowitz's biographer, is that he saw himself as the Son of Uncle Sam. This mythical character that is supposed to represent the U.S. Government and generally what most people believe and I'm one of them, represents what big government looks like in America. Americans who hate high taxes and over centralization of government, the War on Drugs, invasion of privacy, to use as examples. Not to say that Berkowitz hates big government, but I believe he saw it as his duty and was trained to murder people on the behalf of Uncle Sam as what he called himself The Son of Sam. Which is my little theory of why David Berkowitz did what he did.
A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Friday, October 27, 2017

The Bully Pulpit: JR Benjamin- Gore Vidal: Rioting in Understatement

Source: The Nation-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I believe to listen to Gore Vidal speak or read any of his material, you first have to know where he’s coming from and what his political background is. He doesn’t view individual rights and freedom like most Americans do. He has more of a social democratic or democratic socialist approach to how looks at politics, rights, and freedom. He was as far to the left as Henry Wallace who ran for President for the Progressive Party back in 1948, Senator George McGovern, who ran for President three times for the Democratic Party, or Senator Bernie Sanders today.

So when Gore Vidal talks about rights and freedom, he means the right not to go without the basic essentials in life.

The right not to starve.

The right not to want.

The right to health care and health insurance.

The right to housing.

The right to work if someone chooses to, but that work shouldn’t be required even for people who are mentally and physically able.

And for people who literally choose not to work in order to support themselves, those people are also entitled to the same rights that I just mentioned.

The rights that President Franklin Roosevelt proposed in 1944 in his second Bill of Rights speech. What would be called today welfare rights and perhaps back then as well. The rights for people to be taken care of instead of everyone going out there and making their own  way in life and creating their own individual freedom for themselves. Which is very different from what the Founding Fathers created for America even though they didn’t tend individual rights for all Americans and not just Englishmen of wealth. Those individual rights that all Americans have regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender, apply to all Americans because that is how the Founding Fathers (Founding Liberals, really) wrote our Bill of Rights.

All what was consistent with Gore Vidal and is also consistent with the Socialist-Left today that Noam Chomsky and others argue, is that America doesn’t even have a two-party system, let alone a multiple party system. That we have a one-system that has people called Democrats and others called Republicans. Who are both controlled by big business in America and the National Security State.

Gore was somewhat conspiratorial to say the least. And even though he was a helluva lot smarter than your everyday JFK assassination conspiracy theorist and a very intelligent and funny man in general, he had his own conspiracy theories as well.
The Nation: Gore Vidal- Speech at The Nation in 1990

Friday, October 20, 2017

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever

Source: Vanity Fair-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren't that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy's White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster's Sam Giacana's girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what's the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn't affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn't even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn't even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn't come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn't universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn't come around until the early 1990s and wasn't mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica's father and of course was married, but then the fact that he's President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't serious and shouldn't have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should've been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton't wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they're now in the 90s that they're going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I'm referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.
Source: TED Monica Lewinsky: The Price of Shame

Friday, October 13, 2017

The Ripon Society: The Ripon Forum- Gregory Koger: Preserve The Filibuster- Protect People From Political Parties

Source: The Ripon Society- Gregory Koger-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

Before I get into the Republican hypocrisy about the Senate filibuster which is as loud as Metallica heavy metal concert unclose with no earplugs and as obvious as the Grand Canyon is big, I just want to get to the constitutional arguments about the Senate filibuster.

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all Federal legislative powers with Congress. Under the U.S. Constitution Congress writes their own rules. So the Senate decided to have a filibuster and cloture rule. The House decide to have an almost completely majoritarian framework in how they run their business. Which is both the right of the Senate and House of Representatives to write and enforce their rules the way they decide to. Whatever rules they make for themselves are constitutional. Its the laws that Congress passes together that are subjected to judicial rules by the Federal judiciary.

Now the more fun side of this debate. Where were GOP calls for eliminating the Senate filibuster and calling it unconstitutional the first two years of the Obama Administration when Democrats controlled Congress and even had 3/5 majorities in both the House and Senate? But under then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a few Senate Democrats as well, were still able to block some bills proposed and passed by House Democrats. Like extending Unemployment Insurance and additional stimulus bills to the economy. Senate Republicans were able to do this because they stayed inline and prevented Democrats from getting 3/5 majority vote in the Senate.

Or where was the GOP call to eliminate the filibuster from 2011-15 when there were two divided Congress's because House Republicans won back the House in 2010 and held onto majority in 2012. With Senate Democrats keeping the Senate in 2010 and 2012? Senate Republicans with 47 and then later 45 members, were able to block a whole list of Obama Administration executive and later judicial appointments simply by preventing Senate Democrats from obtaining 60 votes. Which is why then Senate Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster in 2013 on executive and judicial nominees.

There are very good reasons why Congress is more unpopular than traveling salesman, lawyers, trial lawyers and make conmen look like good decent moral people. One of those reasons is hypocrisy.

Members of Congress will say they believe in fiscal responsibility and even fiscal conservatism. Until they become fiscally responsible at least in the sense that they're now in power and in control of the nation's fiscal policy. They run against deficit spending when they're in the opposition, especially when they're in both the opposition and minority, which is where Republicans were in 2010 and 2011. And then whey come back into power which is where Republicans are now, deficits no longer seem to matter to them. Especially if they have political priorities and objectives and things they need to accomplish in order to get reelected in 2018.

Why try to pay for tax relief and tax reform and ask people to pay for those things with few government services, when you can just finance those things on the national credit card and get way with it, if they're successful in passing it this year? Being in the political opposition is easy in the sense that you can complain all you want and not really pay any price for it. But governing is difficult because it means making decisions and risking offending groups that you may need to win reelection. Which is where the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans find themselves now.

Republican complaints about the Senate filibuster today and Congress failing to move on anything because legislation getting blocked in the Senate, well their a couple of problems with that.

One, the House isn't passing much if any legislation right now either. At least legislation that even Senate Republicans want to deal with. So maybe the GOP should look at their colleagues in the House when it comes to gridlock or their own Senate Leadership. But the second reason is more obvious and is nothing more than hypocrisy on a month long sugar high. The GOP was in favor of the filibuster when they were in the opposition, especially the opposition and minority, because they could use it to obstruct the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans. Now they're against it because they're divided and can't seem to find enough votes to even pass legislation with a simple majority, let alone a super majority. Opposition to the filibuster is nothing more than political hypocrisy at this point and a big example of why Americans hate politics and hate Congress.
Source: Now This World- U.S. Senator Rand Paul

Now This World: Trace Dominguez- U.S. Senator Rand Paul: What Is A Filibuster?

Friday, October 6, 2017

Bob Daugherty: Mysteries & Scandals- The Blacklist & The Hollywood 10

Source: Bob Daugherty-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Looking back at it The Hollywood Blacklist and The Hollywood 10 and the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee which was as Un-American as anything they were investigating and perhaps the most Un-American committee we've ever seen in Congress, looking back at The Hollywood Blacklist and The Hollywood 10 and the investigations that they were under simply for their ideological beliefs.

Because they were not just Socialists and some of them were simply Socialists and not Communists, but there were also Communists in this community. But they weren't being investigated for being American traitors working for Communist Russia. They were investigated for being Communists, for having communist beliefs. This was the most extreme form of political correctness that we've seen in this country, at least in the 20th Century, because this wasn't just people getting shouted down because they have what might be extreme political views, or just having political views that offend some political activist community that actually might not be extreme.

Which is today's version of political correctness that the Far-Left (talk about Communists and Socialists) uses to try to shut up and censor right-wingers who they disagree with. But this is government-sponsored state-run political correctness. That says your (meaning Communists and Socialists) First Amendment rights aren't as strong as people on the Right and Far-Right, simply because you're Communists and Socialists.

If they were the KKK, Neo-Nazis, fundamentalist theocratic Christians who believe women's place is in the home and it should even be illegal for them to work, or gays should be in jail and prison simply for being homosexual, well the argument from the fascist Far-Right would be there that they're just expressing their First Amendment rights to free speech.

But if you're a Socialist or Communist who believes in state-run health care and health insurance, having a state-run banking and even energy, but aren't active politically in the sense that you're running for office, or even campaigning for any Far-Left political candidates or politicians,  or have any affiliations with Communists states, well you're Un-American according to the fascist Far-Right. Who had this Leave it to Beaver 1940s and 1950s view of what it means to be a real American. Sort of the like 1940s version of the modern Tea Party today.

To put it plainly, political correctness really sucks. The only thing that was Un-American during these supposed investigations of Socialists and Communists in Hollywood, was the House Un-American Activities Committee itself. We have guaranteed free speech rights in America which means you can be on the Far-Left and believe in democratic socialism or even communism and believe that right-wing and perhaps even Center-Left political parties shouldn't even have the right to exist.

Or you can be on the Far-Right and be a Far-Right Nationalist-Tribalist who believes your culture and faction in the country including ethnicity and race are the true Americans and the only people who will standup for America. And see everyone else as threats to your state and therefor aren't deserving of the same constitutional rights as your culture and political faction. Or you can be religious theocrat who puts your religious beliefs over everything else including the U.S. Constitution and are so fundamentalist and have so much faith in your religious beliefs that you believe everything else should not only live under your cultural values, but be forced to live under them in some religious theocracy.

Just as long as the Far-Left and Far-Right aren't violently acting on their beliefs even in an attempt to defeat or eliminate the opposition in order to accomplish their political beliefs. We have a right to free speech and belief, but not a constitutional right to violence short of self-defense. Americans have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to be stupid and even be assholes. Just as long as we're not violent assholes and physically trying to hurt people simply because we disagree with them or even hate them. Our guaranteed right to free speech and beliefs the ability for every American to think for themselves is as American as anything we've ever had in this country and still have.

What's Un-American are not political beliefs whatever they are, but trying to censor those views simply because you disapprove of them or are even offended by them. If Socialists and Communists want to hold political rallies attacking America with their rhetoric and call America the real evil empire in the world and argue that we're some materialistic racist corporate state, because we allow wealth and don't expect government to manage our daily lives for us, they have the guaranteed right to make those arguments and even publish articles, book, produce documentaries. Even if their nothing but great fiction, at best.

If the KKK, Neo-Nazis, want to argue that America is going to hell because of our non-European immigration in the country and that non-European-Americans are Un-American, they have can hold peaceful political rallies, publish articles and books, produce documentaries, making those arguments. And be treated by the public with the public's free speech rights as the complete assholes that they are.

There's nothing dangerous about free speech short of people telling others that certain people should be physically harmed, or have their property attacked, be falsely libeled and accused. What's dangerous is trying to eliminate speech and thought in America simply because you disapprove of what the speaker is thinking and saying. Because the same thing can happen to you by the opposition when they don't like your politics. The American way to confront speech and politics that you disagree with is to peacefully speak out and organize against it. Make the case as far as why the opposition is wrong. Publish articles, books, produce videos, documentaries, with the best available information that you can get about why the opposition is wrong. Which is as American our great diversity and melting pot that represents the entire world that we all call America.
Bob Daugherty: Mysteries & Scandals- The Blacklist & The Hollywood 10

Friday, September 29, 2017

Fix The Debt: 6 Things That Congress Should Do As It Considers The Federal Budget & Government Spending

Source: Fix The Debt-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

"The Fix the Debt Campaign is bringing together Americans from all walks of life and from across the country to get the national debt under control. Learn more and join us."

What Fix The Debt really only offers here are goals that they would like to see accomplished in the next Federal budget that Congress passes and the President signs. Which may happen as soon as 2050 since Congress no longer passes budgets The the last budget that Congress passed was in 2006. What they do instead is pass some appropriations bills and generally its real just the House that passes any appropriations bills. And September comes along which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since September is an annual event in America and Congress realizes that the Federal Government funding is about to run out and decides to pass a short-term spending bill keeping the entire government running until the end of the year generally.

It use to be better than this when Congress would pass an omnibus bill generally in December that would fund the entire government until the following September. Omnibus bills are one appropriation bill passed by Congress instead of all 13 bills and passed instead of a budget. They're not as good as a budget that comes with appropriations bills later on, but are certainly better than running a Federal Government with a four-trillion-dollar budget and without around five-million employees three or four months at a time. Better for the workers and better for the economy, because investors don't have to worry about government shutdowns as much and the negative impact they have on the economy.

The only real solution that Fix The Debt offers here and I doubt the author of this article is actually named Fix The Debt, I mean that is no name for a real human being, but no name for the author is given here, but all they talk about is Congress should pass a budget. Pass a budget that puts us on path to reducing the national deb. And then they offer only one real solution in their article which is called PAYGO. Which is a wonky eggheaded term that in American English means pay as you go.

Makes sense right, is you're going to purchase something pay for it instead of running up big credit card bills that you can't pay back or writing checks that bounce like fully pumped basketballs that are slammed on a highway. But Congress doesn't operate in the real world. They operate in the world of political bases and political contributions. And tend to see their number one job is to get reelected. Especially if they're in the leadership of the major party in the House and Senate and don't want to lose their majority during the next election. Or if they're in the leadership in the minority party they tend to see their number one job is to not only get reelected but add to their membership and win back the House or Senate.

So as long as Congress functions on short-term spending bills and the only real deadline they care about are their primary elections and election days, we'll never see any real solutions to addressing the big deficit of six-hundred-billion dollars and the national debt of twenty-trillion-dollars. Because addressing these issues will cost political capital and support. Because it will mean addressing entitlements, the defense budget, the tax code, emergency spending like disaster relief, and our public assistance anti-poverty programs so we have fewer Americans living and working in poverty and more Americans working and paying payroll and Federal income taxes.

But if you're looking for real solutions that might happen at some point in the future, or more realistically could happen in the short-term, I believe PAYGO and disaster relief reform might be the only things that could pass both the House and Senate and get signed by President Trump. Applying PAYGO to disaster relief and the defense budget. No more waiting until the hurricane season in the late summer to realize that we may need a lot of money to pay for that cleanup and help people be able to get back to their lives. With Congress passing a disaster relief package of somewhere around 50-100 billion dollars that of course is put on the national credit card. (Another way of saying national debt)

But instead showing some common sense (almost as rare as July snow in Los Angeles, in Congress) and knowing that August and September are annual events in America and are hurricane season in the Southeast, as well as the Southwest in Texas with all the heat and humidity and that this is a region that will probably get hit by at least one storm and that it could be a major storm and that this region is probably going to need a lost of assistance to handle any recovery that might be needed. And again, to go back to the need for the Federal budget that the Administration and Congress should plan for these events upfront and pay for them upfront.

We need a natural disaster fund in America that should be paid for by the people who receive that assistance when their property is hit by one of these major storms and need financial assistance in order to recover from it. People who live in higher risk areas should pay more for this insurance because they'll get more assistance when they are hit by a storm or some other natural disaster. This would save the Federal Government 20, 50, perhaps even 100 billion dollars or more each year, as well as taxpayers because the Feds would no longer have to borrow to pay for disaster relief and taxpayers would have less interest to pay back on the national debt when they make purchases.

A fully functioning PAYGO that is tied to the entire Federal budget whether its disaster relief, as well as the defense budget and increases to all parts of the Federal budget including invasions, humanitarian relief efforts that are Defense Department are involved in, repairing and building new bases, alone won't fix the deficit and the national debt. We really need a comprehensive approach here that deals with the tax code, entitlements, poverty assistance, as well as defense and disaster relief. But it would be a good step forward and tell the markets and Wall Street that the U.S. Government is finally serious about the national debt and sees it as a national priority and at the very least will stop asking to the problem that it created.
Source: Crash Course

Crash Course: Adrienne Hill & Jacob Clifford- Deficits & Debt

Friday, September 22, 2017

Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic

Source: Politics and Prose-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I don't have much to offer about the movie High Noon, as least the original one from 1952. I did however see a movie with the same title from the Lifetime Network (of all places) in I believe 2009. But that is not what this piece is about. (Thank God!) Not a good movie and not trying to cure anyone's insomnia by talking about the second High Noon movie. Not a good movie and not even very believable.

What I'm knowledgeable about and have read about and seen some documentaries about, is The Hollywood Blacklist from the 1940s and 1950s. Where workers out in the Hollywood industry who actually were Socialists and in some cases even Communists and even supported Communist Russia back then (known as the Soviet Union) but weren't criminals and didn't even have official relationships with the Soviet Government in Russia. They were simply on trial for their far-left political beliefs by crooked politicians in Congress who were simply trying to take advantage of the Red Scare and the start of the Cold War between America and Europe, against Russia and their allies in the East.

Hollywood professionals like writer Dalton Trumbo which there was a good movie made about him that came out in 2015 simply called Trumbo, were hauled in front of Congress at the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee simply because of their political beliefs. Not for any laws that they might have broken. But because they were Socialists and Communists who didn't like the American liberal democratic form of government and instead wanted a socialist or communist state to replace our liberal democratic federal form of government.

The House Un-American Activities Committee, was exactly that which was Un-American. The idea that people could be hauled in front of Congress at first in the House and then later in the early 1950s to the Senate Investigation Committee chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy simply because of their politics and political beliefs and not for anything that they even may have done, is simply Un-American. So what if Dalton Trumbo was not just on the Far-Left in America, but was also a Communist! He was never going to have any political power in America, nor did he ever want any. And the Communist Party was never going to have any political power in America simply because they're Communists and are illiberal. And oppose most of the liberal democratic values that most Americans love, like free speech and free elections, property rights, right to privacy, just to name a few.

Whether you're a Communist on the furthest Left in American political or a Christian-Theocrat or Nationalistic-Tribalist on the furthest right in American politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. And express your beliefs in public and try to make the case for what you believe in public. Which is as American as our melting post and individualism. Which is what the so-called Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s which is what this nationalistic anti-communist movement opposed and tried to eliminate from American life.
Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic

Friday, September 15, 2017

The Bully Pulpit: JR Benjamin- Why Identity Politics Fails

Source: The Bully Pulpit- Mark Lilla-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Why identity politics fails, at least in America? Well, because as much as the Far-Left (so-called Progressives today who are really Socialists) hates to admit this America is still a country of 320 million individuals. We’ve been this way a country of individuals even though our population has always grown since the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and 70s. When the 1940s and 1950s finally ended culturally and Americans led by the Baby Boom Generation decided that Americans should be able to be themselves. The freedom to be Americans and not forced either through government or culturally to conform with how Americans had lived up to that point in this country.

Identity politics goes against all of that and argues that there is only one way for Americans to live which is their way. Which is that there’s not rich and no poor and where economic equality is forced on everyone. And that people who strive to do better and be independent and make a good living on their own, are just being selfish and materialistic and serving the man. (As they would put it) And the so-called man to the New-Left (the Far-Left in America) is the white man (as they would put it. (Another way of saying the devil)

And non-Caucasian- Americans who are to the right of lets say Che Guevara, Saul Alinsky, Tom Hayden, and many others, who believe that the great thing about America is our diversity and the fact that everyone regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender, can make it in America and be successful and our individualism and the fact that Americans have the freedom to be Americans (which is ourselves) and not be forced to be part of some group either culturally or politically, simply because of their race, ethnicity, or complexion, and have the freedom to be themselves and even be successful. They’re viewed by the New-Left in America as sellouts and even Uncle Toms. Sellouts to their race and culture, because they don’t view individualism and capitalism as immoral and racist.

Identity politics doesn’t work in America because to put it simply its Un-American., Trying to force a country this large, diverse, and individualistic, that is even becoming racially and color blinded (thanks to Generation X) everywhere outside of the Far-Left and Far-Right in America, where we as a country simply want the freedom to be ourselves and live our own lives. And do not feel the need to act, talk, and believe in a certain way simply to please another political group, or radicals in our own ethnic or racial group.

We’re becoming an America where Americans are seen exactly as that. Again outside of the fringes on both sides and identity politics simply goes against that. And argues that Caucasian-Americans are simply overprivileged and by enlarge are bigots except for the people who went to either Ivy League or other great Northeastern or West Coast schools.

And because of that in their view that since Caucasians tend to be bigoted and overprivileged that non-Europeans-Americans are entitled to be treated better and deserve special protection under the law and even culturally, simply because they are specially protected groups as the New-Left would like them to be. And that simply goes against to what America and our great liberal democracy is and is supposed to be. Which is why identity politics fails in America.
Source: Politics and Prose 

Politics and Prose: Andrew Sullivan Interviewing Mark Lilla- The Shipwrecked Mind

Friday, September 8, 2017

Vanity Fair: Opinion- Rich Cohen: Why Generation X Might Be Our Last, Best Hope

Source: Vanity Affair-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To talk about Generation X (my generation born in 1975) it depends on how you define it. To put it simply we're the generation that is now in our forties and fifties. The middle adult generation between the Boomers and the Millennial's. Officially Baby Boomers are Americans born between 1946-64. So after World War II and during the civi rights movement of the mid 1960s. And I'm sure the U.S. Census Bureau does a lot of things very well, but defining generations is not really one of them. And as most Americans (who aren't a Socialist) know government can get things wrong in this country.

Another way to look at Generation X are the people who went to school and grew up in post-segregated America. If you want to know why so many Americans are both color and race blind is because so many of us (Gen-Xers) went to public schools that were racially and ethnically diverse. So we went to school before we knew what race and ethnicity was. And got to see people as they were as people and not just how they looked. Why they had a certain complexion, why there hair looked a certain way, why they had certain names. Things that come with one's ethnicity and race.

Which is why affirmative action has been losing support with my generation and in America broadly, because a lot of us now simply don't judge Americans by their race or ethnicity and therefor don't believe people should be rewarded or punished simply because of their race or ethnicity. I believe the more accurate way to define Generation X is Americans born between 1960 or 61 and 1979. And I believe a lot of Americans born in the early 1960s would agree with this since they have plenty in common as far as their own personal experiences with Americans born in the mid and late 1960s and even early 1970s, is Americans born between 1960 or 61, and 1979. Than they do with Boomer Americans born in the 1940s and 1950s and even in some cases late 1950s.

So everyone born in 1979 would be the last of the Gen-Xers. Which is what I'll be talking about in this piece is Americans born in the 1960s and 1970s that are right between the two largest generations in at least modern American history. The Baby Boomers born in the 1940s and 1950s that are the parents of most Gen-Xers. And the Millennial's born in the 1980s and 1990s who are the children of some Gen-Xers and a lot of Boomers.  Even if you stretch out Generation X to let's say 1961 or even 1960 to 1979, we're still a small generation. Like North Korea surrounded by China and Russia.

Because a lot of Boomers especially men were vacationing in Vietnam in the 1960s (ha, ha) and the the economy was so depressing in the 1970s that a lot of Boomers weren't having kids. They were too busy crying about the Vietnam War and the fact they couldn't find a job, or at least a good job. But that is really for a different topic as far as why my generation is so damn small and we have to look up to the Boomers and Millennial's as far as numbers.

The main reason why I still have some hope for America even with the oversensitive Millennial's who can't take a joke and want to outlaw everything they disagree with and view celebrity culture and new technology as need to know information and current affairs and public policy back page and unimportant, because it requires thinking and intelligence to understand, and history as so old school and yesterday and therefor not worth learning about and being interested in, is because what I laid out early in this article. Gen-Xers are the first post-segregation generation.

If you're a Boomer or older chances are you went to a segregated school, especially if you grew up in the South or even rural small towns in the North. And therefor didn't get to or have to socialize and learn with kids of different racial or ethnic backgrounds as yourself, until you probably graduated high school. And then maybe even in college you didn't go to school with people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Unless you were an African-American who is in college on let's say a scholarship. That is not a problem that most Gen-Xers had and the same thing for the Millennial's.

So Gen-Xers have got to experience America at it's best and what we're supposed to be as this great vast liberal democracy where everyone can succeed if they're simply just given the opportunity to and then take advantage of those opportunities. Regardless of their ethnicity, race, or gender. And we've gotten to learn about America at it's worst and to some extent experience racial and ethnic bigotry ourselves, especially racial and ethnic minorities, but in most cases not to the same extent as our parents and grandparents.

We know what works about America which is our ability to be individuals and at the same time celebrate what we all share and love about America. Which is the ability for us to be ourselves and not have to fall in line and be some big collection of Americans that all think, talk and act alike. And we know what doesn't which is denying Americans opportunity and access simply because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, or their gender. And trying to lump groups of Americans into one group and think they must all think, talk, and act a certain way, because of the group that they're a member of.

Another reason why I have hope for America is Generation X in most cases are the sons and daughters of the Baby Boomers. We've learned from them about individuality and learned from the so-called Me Generation and that Americans are better off being themselves and taking care of themselves. That we're only as useful and can help others when we're doing well ourselves. Which is why I believe Gen-X is an educated generation and successful generation.

We've gotten ourselves the tools to do well in America and then have passed our wealth and knowledge down to others and have become a large volunteering generation. And enjoy volunteering for others and helping people out, because we've made it in America in most cases. And aren't drowning in student debt (unlike another generation) and are able to take care of ourselves for the most part. (Unlike another generation)

The last reason why I believe America still has hope and will still be a great country 20 years from now when I'm in my early 60s (knock on wood) is because Generation X is the middle generation. We're in our 40s and 50s and just had our first President in Barack Obama. (Born in 1961) We're going to be around and in charge for a long time. And because of that will have the ability to lead and teach others what we've know and have experienced.

And hopefully the Millennial's will grow up and learn that just because they don't like a joke or criticism, doesn't necessarily make that joke and criticism bigoted.

Hopefully Millennial's will learn that just because they don't approve of this activity or another like what people eat and drink like soft drinks and junk food, or meat because they view eating meat as animal cruelty, doesn't mean those things are so bad that government should prohibit them.

Hopefully Millennial's will learn that just because celebrity culture and new technology or are so like totally awesome or whatever, that maybe those things really aren't as important as how government is spending our tax dollars, or are we going to be at war, or are our civil rights, civil liberties, and constitutional rights, are now in jeopardy, because of some big government action or actions.

These are the reasons why I still have hope for America and my Generation X is a big part of that.
Source: National Geographic- NBC Nightly News Anchor Jane Pauley 


National Geographic: NBC Nightly News With Jane Pauley- Birth Of The Slacker

Friday, September 1, 2017

The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Source: The Independent Institute-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Libertarian Economist Walter Williams once said something that I actually agree with. He was talking about property rights and extended them to one's self and one's body. That the individual has complete control of their own body and therefor gets to decide what's done with their body. What they can eat, what they can drink, what they can smoke, even who they can have consensually have sex with. Even if the sex is homosexual sex, taking money to have sex with someone else in a consensual way.

How we can spend our own money short of using our money to have someone beat up or murdered, or spending our money in order to have something stolen from someone else. And that includes spending our money to gamble even at casinos or private card games, to use as examples. That private property rights just doesn't cover one's home, or car, or personal possessions, like a business that they may own. But ourselves as individuals and our own bodies. Short of hurting an innocent person with our body or other property like money.

This is really the main difference between a liberal democracy like America with guaranteed constitutional and individual rights that include property rights as I just mentioned and living in a Marxist-Communist state like North Korea (to use as an example) where individualism is essentially outlawed. Where the state (meaning the national government) owns everything in society. Including where the people live and work, even shop.

Even social democracies like Britain that are very socialist as far as how their national government and economy works, have a high degree of property rights in their country. They just aren't guaranteed especially under a constitutional system which is what we have in America. Property rights are the rights for individuals to control and operate what they actually own including their own bodies.

Our property rights are guaranteed in America under both the Fourth and Fifth amendment's in the Constitution. That can't be interfered with by the state (meaning government) without probable cause. That the state views what someone is doing as a threat to bodily harm or financial harm to an innocent person. Not talking about an anarcho state (meaning anarchy) where everyone can essentially do whatever they want including hurting innocent people. And then it's left up to the victim to decide what should happen to their predator and left up to the victim to inflict whatever consequences on their predator.

But talking about a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where property rights including to one's self are guaranteed short of hurting innocent people with our property. As much as so-called Progressives in America today (Socialists in reality) complain about property rights, private property, and individualism in America and that too much in their view is left up to the individual to decide how they should live, they take advantage of our property rights and free speech everyday. And you can say the same thing about the Christian-Right in America but their complaints about our property rights tend to be more about our personal freedom and our freedom to make our own lifestyle choices, instead of our economic freedom.

But that's just one thing that is great about America that one doesn't even have to believe in property rights and either personal or economic freedoms, or either of them in order to take advantage of them and live with them. People who don't believe in free speech (just one property right) can use their First Amendment rights to make the case why censorship is necessary to outlaw speech that they disagree with and that offends them.

Because the censors whether they are political correctness warriors or Christian-Conservatives who are offended by certain forms of entertainment, have the same free speech rights as people who believe in free speech. Who are free speech nuts like myself, to borrow a phrase from Kirsten Powers and Jeffrey Lord. (Two political analysts at CNN) Just as long as we're not using our free speech rights to incite violence or irresponsibly libel innocent people. That property rights extend to everyone including people who don't believe in them.
The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Friday, August 25, 2017

Lloyd Laney: Susan Hayward 1998 Biography

Source: Lloyd Laney-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I believe what made Susan Hayward such a great actress was how real she was which allowed to her seem like she wasn't acting. She almost had this "I have nothing to lose attitude so I might as well do things my way." Which I guess is understandable because of how she grew up and was raised. Coming from an immigrant community in a very poor part of New York. And was taught very young or perhaps just learned herself that if she's going to accomplish anything in life because of how she's starting out she's going to have to earn everything and work very hard. Because nothing will be given to her.

Sort of reminds me of how Richard Nixon started out in life coming from a very poor part of Southern California and yet he is elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in his early thirties and the U.S. Senate just two years later, Vice President of the United States by 39 and never had to worry about money the rest of his life. People appreciate things more in life when they earn them because they know what it's like not to have much and don't want to go back there. Which I believe is what kept Susan going for as long as she was able to and literally becoming not just one of the best actresses of her generation, but ever.

Not to get too political especially in piece about Classic Hollywood but Susan Hayward represents exactly what American exceptionalism is. That no matter your race, ethnicity, gender, how you were raised and the income level of your parents, if you have real talent, skills, and a strong work-ethic, you'll make it in America. Susan Hayward's lack of a start in life and having nothing to start of with and her father never making enough money for his family to live well and they always being in poverty, only made Susan work harder and be able to accomplish more on her own. Because she hated poverty so much that we was going to work as hard and be as successful as she possibly can.

Susan was finally able to finally enjoy life instead of worrying about will she have enough food to eat that day or will she homeless and other things that most Americans who don't live in poverty take for granted everyday. I believe Susan's upbringing and how real and honest she was contributed to her being the great actress that she was. Because she knew too well what poverty and going without was like and when she was acting it was like she wasn't acting or pretending at all, because of how real she was.

I believe Susan Hayward was one of the first great dramatic comedic actresses. And what I mean by that is not someone who can do both drama and comedy well someone like a Sally Field today who is still one of the funniest people in Hollywood and has still has great comedic timing, but who is also a very good if not great dramatic actress. But Susan was someone who brought comedy to her dramatic roles and could combine both genres into one role and be dramatic and funny at the same time. The movie I'll Cry Tomorrow where she plays a great but alcoholic actress, is an excellent example of that. Where she was cracking wisecracks with the perfect timing as she was playing a drunk with a really bad case of alcoholism.

Susan was so real as an actress and had a knack for playing women who were struggling and did that so well, because she wasn't playing. She knew exactly what it was like to struggle in life and would take those parts and literally turn into the women she was playing, because she knew exactly what it was like to struggle in life. Which is what I believe made her a great actress. Which I believe is also what lead to Susan's downfall and why she dies in 1975 in her late fifties because everything in life was such a struggle for her and she didn't take enough time to actually enjoy what she accomplished in life.
Lloyd Laney: Susan Hayward 1998 Biography

Friday, August 18, 2017

Foreign Policy: Opinion- Daren Acemoglu & Simon Johnson- It's Time To Found a New Republic

Source: Foreign Policy Magazine-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I read this article called It’s Time To Found a New Republic from Daren Acemoglu and Simon Johnson over at Foreign Policy Magazine. And it wasn’t just the title of the article that caught my attention. It’s Time To Found a New Republic, if they spent more time on the title maybe they would’ve called It’s Time For a New Republic, Time To Create a New Republic, The New American Republic. When something is found you don’t need to fine it, because it’s already there.

But getting pass the wording of the title of their piece most of their article was about American history and the progressive movement. Starting with the Progressive Era of the early 1900s and going up to the New Deal of the 1930s and the creation of the our national infrastructure system of the 1950s. And then towards the end they were had some policy proposals.

Ranging from a national basic income, which I disagree with, to ending partisan, racial, and ethnic gerrymandering which I’m in favor of. When I saw the title of their piece I’m, thinking maybe they were talking about creating a new form of American government. That the problem with American society (as they might see it) is the structure of our government all together. Perhaps they don’t like our Federal system based on limited government and would propose replacing that with a unitarian style of government that you see a lot of in Europe. Where most of the governmental power in the country is based with the national government. Instead of spread out between the national, state, and local government’s.

Just to comment on Daren Acemoglu’s and Simon Johnson’s economic proposals. I don’t believe the problem of income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with our government structure and how power and responsibility is spread out. Not that they were arguing that either necessarily. But it has to do with the skills gap and opportunity gaps in the American economy.

If you live in rural America and grow there, or you’re raised in a rough part of an inner city your chances of doing well in America are far lesser than if you come from a middle class neighborhood in a city or from the suburbs. Also if you have parents or even one parent who are doing well in life, not necessarily rich but doing well enough for you to be raised right and have you what you need to do well growing up, your chances of doing well in America are much better if you come from a low-income family in a low-income neighborhood, where your parent or parents are just struggling to survive.

So you want to reduce income inequality (again, if you want to call it that) you have to reduce the inequality that’s part of our education system and have an education system where more Americans can simply get a good education. Regardless of where they live and where they grow up and who their parents are. And of course regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Which should go without saying anyway.

As well as having an adult educational system in this country where low-income adults whether they’re currently working or not, can advance in the American economy by finishing and furthering their education and getting themselves a good job that leads them to economic independence.

As well as having that system available for workers who already have a solid education. High school diploma plus some vocational training and perhaps a college degree, but now find themselves working in a field where those jobs are disappearing or where they’re no longer able to make the money that allows for them to live comfortably. And allow for them to further their education perhaps even in a new field for them.

The problem with the American economy has nothing to do with our form of government. Or our Federal Government is too small, our state and local government’s, have too much responsibility, or middle class Americans are undertaxed and have to much personal and economic freedom and have to make too many decisions on their own.

The problem with the American economy and why we have income inequality (if you want to call it that) has to do with education and skills. We need to move pass the idea that schools should be funded based on the property values of the people who live in those communities . Which has to do with property taxes. And sending kids to school based on where they live, instead of what’s the best school for them.

And get pass the idea that if you start at a low-wage low-skilled job because you’re low-skilled, that you’re stuck working jobs like that indefinitely. Because you can’t afford to go back to school or simply don’t have the time for it, because you’re working multiple low-wage jobs just to try to survive.

You close the skills and education gaps in America, you reduce poverty, because you’ll not just have more Americans working as long as you have pro-growth economic policies in place that promote economic development and growth, but you’ll also have more Americans working good jobs. Which will also improve your long-term economic and financial outlook of the country. Because you’ll have fewer Americans on public assistance.
Source: RCO 64

RCO 64: The American Form of Government

Friday, August 11, 2017

Suzy Reinhardt: Mysteries and Scandals- Susan Hayward

Source: Mysteries and Scandals- Susan Hayward-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

When I think of Susan Hayward I think of great dramatic comedy actresses who are real-life drama queens. Similar to Ava Gardner, women who had a tendency to play parts that were close to home. Susan Hayward had a habit of playing women who were going through really tough experiences and were even scorned and somehow make it through those experiences until they're hit so hard at the end which is what finally brings them down.

Susan Hayward played alcoholics, Susan was an alcoholic. Susan played women who were depressed and consumed a lot of sleeping pills and other medication just to try to get through life. Susan consumed a lot of sleeping pills and antidepressants. I believe what made Susan such a great actress and again very similar to Ava Gardner is she played women who were a lot like her. Very beautiful, really adorable, quick witted, very intelligent, and very honest.

As one of the men in this video said there was no bull or baloney with Susan Hayward. And I would have used much stronger language than that. You knew where you stood with her and how she was feeling all the tine. And again we're talking about one of the best actresses ever, so could have easily hided her feelings if she wanted to and played pretend and fooled a lot of people. But again what made her such a great actress was that she was so real. And you always knew what she was going though, how she felt, and how she felt about you.

If you're looking for good Susan Hayward movies to check out this weekend on in the future, I could give you several, but if you're really interested in Susan Hayward herself and what she went through in life, then I have a few movies that will give you a great idea of why she was a great actress.

I Want To Live, where she plays a death row inmate the true story of Barbara Graham. Barbara was also a women who went through horrible experiences in life and had some real bad men in her life and ended becoming a criminal herself. Whether she was actually guilty of the murder she was convicted of in the end is a different story.

Where Love Has Gone from 1964 which I believe was made based on the life of Lana Turner and how her boyfriend ends up dying in that relationship because her daughter ends up killing him. Susan plays a women in Where Love Has Gone who has an abusive boyfriend or at least a man with a bad temper and goes off one night and Susan's daughter comes in and shoots  the man.

I'll Cry Tomorrow where Susan plays a starlet who drinks too much and is overly medicated. Again very similar to the life that Susan lived herself.

Imagine how much more dramatic real-life would be if we had a lot more Susan Hayward's in and out of Hollywood. Imagine what life would be like if you always knew where you stood with people. You would really know if someone liked you or disliked you. You would really know if someone loved you or hated you. If you were doing a good job or about to get fired. But at least you would know where you stood in life and how you stood with other people and be able to make the necessary adjustments or continue to do what's working before something bad happened to you or you went off course.

That is the life that Susan played in the characters that she played and the life she lived. Which makes her very unique in Hollywood where everything is generally about appearances and make believe and where Hollywood imitates real-life too much and people outside of Hollywood are more interested in appearances instead of reality.
Suzy Reinhardt: Mysteries and Scandals- Susan Hayward

Friday, August 4, 2017

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Source: The Independent Institute-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia the definition of social justice is, "justice in terms of distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society."

People let's say on the farther left (Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists) take the definition to mean that there should be distribution of wealth in society. That wealth should be distributed based on what people need to live well. Not based on what people earn. And of course the central government usually a unitarian government in most social democracies (one large government for the entire country) will collect most of the wealth in the country and dish it back out in the form of welfare state payments to the people based on what the government believes people need to live well in society.

So the people not just living above poverty, but living somewhat comfortably, but short of being wealthy and perhaps even upper middle class. Socialists (democratic and otherwise) don't believe in rich or poor. They want equality of outcomes where no one is wealthy or poor, but able to live well. This type of economic system is how Scandinavia operates and the states there and to a certain extent even in Britain. (Even when the Conservatives are in charge)

The libertarian notion of social justice is to put it in plain terms is that what's mine is mine and what's yours, is yours. To paraphrase Libertarian Economist Walter Williams. Meaning what the people make for themselves is exactly that. And shouldn't be subjected to taxation especially to help pay for the people who don't have much to live on and are in living in poverty as a result.

To go back to the Wikipedia definition of social justice. Liberals (in the real and classical sense) concentrate on the opportunities portion of social justice. Liberals believe in an opportunity society. Where everyone has the ability to make a good life for themselves. Where everyone has access to a quality education even if they live in poverty. And if they live in poverty that their parents or parent, has the ability to finish and further their education so they can get themselves a good job and make a good living.

Get off of public assistance, buy a nice home and live in a nice community where they don't have to worry about being physically harmed when they go to the grocery store, or are coming back or going to school. Where they have a basic fundamental sense and reality when it comes to their own economic and physical security. And then what the people make for themselves financially, they're able to keep most of that and pay back in taxes what it takes for the government to function effectively and to do only what we need for government to do well for us, that is also consistent with strong economic and job growth so people are encouraged to be productive and make a good living for themselves and their families.

And yes you need an effective government to invest in what makes economies strong so as many people can benefit from capitalism and private enterprise as possible. Not to run the economy or to run business's, or tax and regulate private business so much that the government essentially owns and runs those companies.

But to see that everyone can get a good education. Where kids aren't sent to school simply because of where they live, but what's the best school for them even if that might mean a charter school or private school all together.

Where economic development is encouraged so you don't have ghost towns essentially where the only people who live there are people who can't afford to live anywhere else. Where gangs and organize criminals run the communities.

Where you have an modern infrastructure system so companies can get their products to market (to use an old phrase) and also to encourage more private economic development.

A responsible regulatory state to protect consumers from predators and worker from abusive employers.

And a limited effective safety net (not welfare state) that serves an economic insurance system for people who are out-of-work, or lack basic skills to get themselves a good job. But also empowers low-skilled individuals to get themselves on their feet by finishing and furthering their education and learning a trade so they can get themselves a good job.

Where Liberals separate from Socialists has to do with government's involvement in the economy. Socialists want government to take most of the national income and dish it back out based on what they believe people need to do well. Where Liberals differ with Libertarians is that Liberals believe that the people should be able to to keep most of what they earn. But that Liberals believe there is a real role for government even in a free society and that being part of a free society is like being part of a club. Where you end up paying for the services that you consume and even some of the services that don't personally benefit you.
Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition


Saturday, January 28, 2017

The Film Historian: Susan Hayward Biography

Source: The Film Historian-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

Susan Hayward was so adorable, a beautiful baby-face sweetheart and a hell of an actress. She was as great of an actress as she was to look at. So pretty and adorable at the same time and could always crack a joke and make people laugh. I believe very similar to Ava Gardner in that way, but not as beautiful. But both were very beautiful, adorable even in an immature way at times when they didn’t get their way and funny as well. I believe had she lived longer Susan would have ended up doing soap opera and perhaps even prime-time soaps like Dynasty or Dallas, which is what Joan Collins and Elizabeth Taylor did on Dynasty in the 1980s. Because she was so adapt at bringing drama and being very dramatic and mixing in wise cracks and making people laugh at the same time. She was the constant entertainer when she was working or not working.

Just saw two Susan Hayward movies this last week. Two of her best movies in Where Love Has Gone from 1964 with Mike Connor and Betty Davis. And I Want To Live, where she plays convicted murderer Barbara Graham who was convicted of murdering one of her partners in crime (I know that sounds lame) in the 1950s and gets sentenced to death in California. She plays a women who is on death row and she ends up having almost everyone in the movie hoping she gets her sentenced commuted to life without parole, because no one wants to see her die, because she knows how to treat people and is so sweet and adorable and real and knows she’s lived a bad life and is a career criminal. But ends up having a lot of people fighting for her life and getting her off of death row.

Where Love Has Gone, is basically a two-hour soap opera. Lots of sarcasm which is perfect for a movie where the stars are Susan Hayward, Mike Connors and Bette Davis. This movie (I at least believe) is based off of the Lana Turner-Johnny Stompanato relationship in the 1950s. Where Lana’s daughter Cheryl ends up killing Johnny who was an Italian mobster, because she believes Johnny is trying to kill her mother Lana. In Where Love Has Gone Susan’s daughter in the movie (played by Joey Heatherton) kills her mother’s boyfriend, because she believes her mother is spending too much time with him and her mom is not spending enough time with her. It’s a classic Susan Hayward movie, because it’s heavy on the drama and even soap opera and yet a movie with a lot of quick humor in it.

Susan Hayward I believe was a great dramatic-comedic actress. And not necessarily someone who could do both drama and comedy, because of course she could. But that she was adept at combining both genres in one movie. Very similar to Alfred Hitchcock, but as an actress and not as a director. She just had a great personality and was very real with her work and characters and always had the audience believing that she was exactly who she was playing. And not some actress pretending to be someone else. And had she not have died from radiation poisoning in the 1970s I believe she would be talked about today as the great dramatic-comedy actress that she was. And getting the attention for being as beautiful and adorable as she really was.
The Film Historian: Susan Hayward Biography