Reform Party USA: 'Core Principles of the Reform Party'

Source:Reform Party USA- the official logo of RPUSA.

Source:The New Democrat  

"We, the members of the Reform Party, commit ourselves to reform our political system. Together we will work to re-establish trust in our government by electing ethical officials, dedicated to fiscal responsibility and political accountability." 

From Reform Party USA

I hope the title of this post is long enough, otherwise the hell with it. But I agree with the notion of this blog post from the Reform Party that governing simply shouldn’t be about compromise. That even with a divided government with two parties that do not like each other (which is putting it very mildly) and certainly do not trust each other that both sides at the end of the business day still have a responsibility to not only govern, but to govern well.

And in divided government like today that means taking the best from both sides and putting into a package that works. And throwing out the garbage from both sides instead of just splitting the difference on each key issue. As if that is governing even when trying to go half way on each issue may not and in most cases does not result in a good end result. 

There are plenty of examples going back to the early 1980s when the Federal Government became very partisan with a new Conservative President in Ronald Reagan, with a Conservative Republican Senate. To go with a Progressive Democratic House where they managed to govern very well with divided Congress’s.

It is not so much the art of the compromise that should try to be reached. But the art of the consensus. What do both sides want and on a lot of key issues both sides tend to have the same end goals. And after that has been established now where are both sides, what would each side do if they were completely in charge. In other words: what is the opening offer from both sides so we know where both side is. And after that has been established you look to the common ground.

You find that and you put that in the final package and then after that you look for victories from both sides. The good from each side and put their ideas alone on certain key issues. For example the 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example. Republicans wanted time limits and work requirements in the new Welfare system. Democrats wanted job training, education, and childcare for people on Welfare. What happened is both sides won and the final bill had job training, education, childcare, time limits and job requirements.

You take the good from both sides and throw out the things that probably wouldn’t work. Or that both sides simply can’t live with. Meaning both sides get their victories, but do not get everything they are looking for. Instead of just splitting the difference and running for the middle on the key issues. And that is how you get good government in a divided government.

Huffington Post: Richard Eskow- 'Was This the Social Contract’s Comeback Year?'

Source:Crooks & Liars- U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Maryland)

Source:The New Democrat 

"What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, a president and a party who had just won an election with progressive rhetoric were quickly pivoting toward a “Grand Bargain” which would cut Social Security and Medicare. Leaders in both parties were obsessed with deficits, and there was “bipartisan” consensus that these “entitlements” needed to be cut. The only questions left to debate were when they would be cut, and by how much. To resist these moves was to be dismissed as “unserious” and “extreme” — in Washington, in newsprint, and on the airwaves.

Today the forces of corporate consensus are on the defensive. It’s considered politically reckless to get too far out front on the subject of benefit cuts. Some of the think tanks who advocated Austerity Lite one year ago are focused now on inequality. And, as the leaders of Third Way learned recently, the same rhetoric which earned nods of approval all across Washington this time last year can get you slapped down today." 

From the Huffington Post 

"A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression." 

Source:All Histories- from a film about the New Deal.

From All Histories

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance (to use several examples) I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where there are all sorts of public programs funded through taxes (not free for the people) there to take care of people. 

I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of.

Global News: 'Canadian Supreme Court- Strikes Down Prostitution Laws'

Source:Global News- the Supreme Court of Canada.

"Fri, Dec 20: In a unanimous and landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country's prostitution laws, giving Parliament a year to come up with new legislation. Mike Le Couteur reports. For more info, please go to:Global News." 

From Global News

Canada choosing regulation and taxation over prohibition when it comes to prostitution. Something America should do as well.

Chicago Tribune: 'How to Combat Inequality'

Source:Chicago Tribune- money, money, money.

Source:The New Democrat 

"If you're a low-income African-American with a talent for braiding hair, you might have the idea of making money that way. You could start out doing it for relatives and friends and gradually build a clientele that could provide a decent income without a lot of capital. It could offer a way out of poverty and into the middle class.

But in many states, including Illinois, it's not so simple. If you want to braid hair professionally, you must be a licensed cosmetologist. And to get that license, you have to get 1,500 hours of training. A poor woman who wants to pick up a little cash off the books can usually get away with it. But if she hopes to earn a living and can't afford the training, she's out of luck.

That's one of the ways in which the American economic system hinders those at the bottom of the income scale. Many of them grew up with bad schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods and boarded-up shopping centers. Lots of the auto and steel plants that used to provide a middle-class lifestyle on a high school education (or less) have closed. So even as America has grown wealthier, many Americans have not." 

From the Chicago Tribune 

"Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic ladder move further and further apart, conventional wisdom says that it will become much more difficult to climb them. Opportunities for upward mobility-the American dream-will disappear as the deck becomes stacked against the middle class and the poor. But others see inequality as a positive, a sign of a dynamic and robust economy that, in the end, helps everyone. And contrary to public opinion, mobility has remained stable over the past few decades. If the American dream is dying, is it the result of income inequality? Or is disparity in income a red herring where more complex issues are at play?" 

Source:IS Debates- what's called income inequality in America.

From IS Debates

I agree with a lot of what was said in this Chicago Tribune editorial about the problems of why people at the bottom of the American income scale are at the bottom and why the people at the top are at the top. And as much as so-called Progressives (or Social Democrats) in America like to try to make the so-called income inequality argument in America about the rich stealing from the poor, it is not true at least in most cases.

The wealthy in America tend to be wealthy, because they have a wealth of education and marketable skills that they have used to create their success. And have either gotten those skills by having wealthy parents who were able to send them to good schools including college, or came from strong middle class families. And went to good middle class schools and ended up going to and graduating from a good college by either getting a scholarship, student loans or working really hard and going to school at the same time. Or a combination of all of those, or some of those factors.

But there are also very successful people in America who didn’t come from wealth or even a middle class family. But had strong enough parents to make sure they not only stayed in and finished school, but got themselves a good education. Even if that meant one or both parents working multiple jobs to make that happen. So if you come from a good foundation even one with not a lot of money, but a lot of love and parents who’ll do whatever they can to see that you have a good shot at succeeding in life and you take advantage of those opportunities, you’ll do well in America.

The poor in America whether they are working or not, tend to have gotten off to a bad start in life. Dad walks out, mom left to raise their kid or kids by herself. Or dad in prison and mom not prepared to raise her kids in a proper way without the skills to do so. And then these kids make it worst for themselves by not finishing school and getting whatever education that they can. Having kids before finishing high school and essentially leaving their mother to raise her grandchildren for them.

And of course kids from both poor and rough neighborhoods falling into the wrong crowd as adolescents. Getting in trouble, not finishing high school and now looking at having a juvenile record and doing time. To go along with not having a high school diploma, having kids to take care of too early in life. Without much hope of giving their kids what their parents couldn’t give them. Which is a good start at life coming with a good education and a good shot at doing well in life.

So these are the main reasons for what I call the income gap in America as opposed to income inequality. So then it is about what should be done about these issues. And for me as a Liberal it always gets to opportunity and empowerment coming from education and job training. Having a public education system in this country that is not run by the Federal Government, but where everyone in the country can go to a school that is best for them.

Instead of being forced to going to a school based on where they live. Which is a big reason for the income gap in America with students not getting the skills that they need in life because they live in a low-income neighborhood. And the Federal Government can help with additional resources to our public schools so all of our public school students would be able to go to a good school.

And then with our low-income workforce whether they are currently working or not for our non-employed low-income workforce, it shouldn’t be about just getting them to work, but getting them good work experience as well as the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. Instead of just putting them to work in low-skilled low-income jobs without the ability that they need to get themselves a good job. 

This is why job creation with our low-skilled workforce needs to also be about job training as well so this population can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. And that means at least getting a degree at a junior college or a vocational school. So they have the skills they need to do well in life. And the Federal Government and private sector with private job training programs can help provide the resources for this.

If you want to do well in America it takes marketable skills and education to make that happen. Without that you are looking at a life of poverty and living in rough neighborhoods dependent on public assistance for your economic survival. And even if you are working dead-end low-skilled low-income jobs with not much if any hope for advancement and making a good living. But with a good education and job skills, you can do as well in life as your talents and you applying your talents will allow which will benefit the country as a whole.

Workers World: Kris Hamel- 'Only Socialism Can Save Detroit'

Source:Kris Hamel- Workers World writer Kris Hamel.

Source:The New Democrat

"Talk given at WWP conference  on Nov. 16 by Kris Hamel.

Workers World Party wants to expropriate the expropriators and overturn capitalism, an economic system whose demise is way overdue. In this age of imperialism and endless war, low-wage and dead-end capitalism, we fight for socialism — not as some utopian dream for a far-off future — but as a necessary and realizable goal today for the liberation of humanity’s majority and the uplifting of the masses of people worldwide." 

You can read the rest of this piece at Workers World. 

"To everyone: Please keep up with OWS at my online daily newspaper, 'Occupy Wall Street News and Videos', supporting the movement here:Occupy Wall Street and visit my Youtube channel for more OWS-related videos. 

Please feel free to share any news or videos to help continue getting the word/info out. That's what it's there for!

Thanks! -Munderlarkst

Above video: Thanks to BigThink.com, a great Web site. Video is from 2008." 

Source:Munderlarkst- left-wing historian Howard Zinn, talking about socialism.

From Munderlarkst

Socialism is one of those things that is hard to explain and define for many people. Which is why it means different things to different people sort of like liberalism. But to put it simply, socialism is anything provided by government for the people that is funded by public revenue. Generally through taxes, but not always and it can financed through state-owned enterprises as well. Which was common in Cuba before they moved to a state form of capitalism a few years ago.

When people tend to think of Socialists, they tend to think of people who are Marxists. Named after the famous Far-Left philosopher Carl Marx. And a Marxist is someone who believes in state-owned economics. And believes the state meaning the central government for whatever given country should own and operate the economy and all of its enterprises on behalf of the people. To see that no one has too little or too much. I guess that would be what I would call a Classical Socialist to go along with the big welfare state. And all the social services that would come from the central government.

But anyone whose familiar with the developed world as it is called that is the wealthy countries of the world that have large middle class populations and even a decent number of wealthy people, but even the fast developing countries of the developing world like Mexico, China and India (to use as examples) know that these countries don’t have state-owned economic systems. And that most of the industries in these countries are in private hands subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

But these countries aren’t completely capitalist either and have large and expansive welfare states. That provide most of the services that people need to do well in life. Like education, pension, health care, health insurance and other services. A lot of these countries tend to be social democratic and run by Social Democrats on the Left. Or people on the Right who even though they might not be Social Democrats aren’t interested in dismantling the welfare state. But in many cases are there to see that it doesn’t expand and that these programs are run better. And even getting competition from the private sector to perform these services as well.

The future of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats especially in America, but the developing world and Europe as well I believe is not the Marxist Socialist approach of government trying to do everything for everybody. But it is the Bernie Sanders wing of the socialist movement. Bernie Sanders the senator from Vermont the only self-described Socialist in the United States Congress.

Senator Sanders is someone who believes in capitalist private enterprise economy. But that is highly taxed and regulated to protect workers and consumers from capitalist predators, but also so the central government has the resources to provide most of the services that people need to live well in life. Which is the type of Socialist that gets elected in America, but also in Europe as well.

Canadian Blaster: NASL 1979-Semifinal- Vancouver Whitecaps @ New York Cosmos: Overtime

Source:Canadian Blaster- the Vancouver Whitecaps and New York Cosmos from 1979.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In what many consider to be the greatest match in the history of the original North American Soccer League, this is ABC's broadcast of the second leg of the 1979 National Soccer Conference final between the Vancouver Whitecaps and the defending NASL champion New York Cosmos.

This match was held at the now-demolished Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Vancouver had taken the first leg of the NSC final in Vancouver by a score of 2-0. For the Cosmos to advance to the Soccer Bowl, they would have to win this leg, then win a 30-minute 'mini-game' after that.

This video shows the conclusion of the match, which included the conclusion of the extra time period and the NASL shootout to decide the winner.

As it turned out, the 30-minute 'mini-game' would indeed be needed, and even that had its own extra time period and subsequent NASL shootout following it.

The announcers calling the match are Jim McKay and Paul Gardner, with Verne Lundquist on the sideline.

This video is intended for entertainment purposes only and no infringement of any kind is intended." 

From Canadian Blaster 

"There seems to be little disagreement (famous last words) among fans of the original NASL that the greatest game in that league’s 17 seasons was the second leg of the 1979 semifinal between the New York Cosmos and the Vancouver Whitecaps.

That this bitter rivalry produced a heated battle was no surprise. There had been bad blood between the Cosmos and the Whitecaps throughout the 1979 season, including a fight that had seen four players sent off, and it continued into the first game of their semifinal series, a 2-0 victory for Vancouver at Empire Stadium in Vancouver.

The spark that set off the trouble in that game was the second Vancouver goal, on a breakaway by Trevor Whymark. The Cosmos felt that the goal should have been disallowed for offside. Carlos Alberto led the Cosmos’ futile protest against the goal, and the atmosphere wasn’t helped any when Andranik Eskandarian was red carded after taking a run at a Vancouver player. Then, in the tunnel leading to the locker rooms after the game, Carlos Alberto got into an altercation with an official that, according to the league reports, included spitting on him." 

Source:US Soccer History- The New York Cosmos and Vancouver Whitecaps from 1979.

From US Soccer History

One of the best played soccer games in both American and Canadian history. I’m not a soccer expert American or otherwise and at best a casual soccer fan. I do have some appreciation for the sport, but do not follow it closely. But I do know this was one of the best games in soccer history between these two countries. Because of the two teams that were involved, how evenly matched they were and the fact that either team could’ve won it. 

American soccer needs more games like this and need more Americanized rules as well to bring more Americans fans in to today’s MLS. Which is something that the NASL understood 30-40 years ago which is why they were able to draw baseball and football size crowds to their games. And not stuck 15-10 thousand attendance and that would be good crowds for todays MLS.

PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff: 'Mark Shields and David Brooks Look At Impact of Senate's Rule Change'

Source:PBS NewsHour- syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss their takes on Senate Democrats' move to invoke the "nuclear option" and how that rule change will affect partisanship. They also look back at how President John F. Kennedy shaped public service in America." 

From the PBS NewsHour

As I said yesterday, Senate Democrats essentially had no choice, but to do this because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules in how the Senate filibuster was used by saying: 

“Even though we are the opposition and minority party in the United States and only have forty-five members of the Senate, we get to decide when the President of the United States that our party has now lost to twice both in Electoral College landslides and lost the Senate elections as well, we’ll get to decide when an if President Obama will get to make appointments to either his administration or the courts, based on whether we believe those offices should exist. And whether or not we believe that office needs to be filled right now."

Senate Republicans were not blocking people based on whether they are qualified or not, which has been the tradition of whether or not presidential appointments should be blocked or not. 

Again Leader Harry Reid was forced to do this, but Senate Democrats will pay a price for this. The next time there is a Republican president and Republican Senate at the same time and with the state of the Republican Party, that could be a while. (But stranger things have happened)

Andrew Kaczynski: 'When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster'

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) talking about changing the Senate filibuster in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster" 

From Andrew Kaczynski

Newsflash: there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating (and the ten percent are probably comatose or living oversees right now) because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. 

And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. 

The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power to the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and when to debate them.

C-SPAN: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid- 'Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about the Senate filibuster, in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Harry Reid: Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees. Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05." 

From Filibuster Flashback

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. 

But whoever is against  the Senate filibuster (when they're in the majority) is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. 

One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy, as well as long so-called work vacations, getting paid while not working  and perhaps a few other things, but Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.

CSPAN: Andrew Sullivan vs Dennis Prager- Same-Sex Marriage (1996)

Source:CSPAN- the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Source:The New Democrat   

"The House Judiciary Subcommittee heard testimony concerning the Defense of Marriage Act from activists, state legislators and others." 

From CSPAN

Source:CSPAN- Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, arguing against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, at the House Judiciary Committee in 1996.

If you believe in freedom of choice and even individual freedom and liberty, as well as marriage, and that people who are in love with each other should be get married, then you shouldn't have a problem with same-sex-marriage, if you're also a constitutionalist. Because marriage whether it's straight or gay is about uniting a partnership between two people that are in-love with each other. 

If your politics if defined by your religious and cultural views and not by the U.S. Constitution and your religion and politics are fundamentalist, then of course same-sex-marriage is going to be a problem for you. Hell, if you're a religious fundamentalist, you probably don't believe that gays should be allowed to freely walk the streets, let alone be in-love with each other or get married. 

I look at same-sex-marriage and homosexuality the way I look at all freedom of choice issues: does someone's else personal choice affect me in a negative way or not. If the answer is no, then what do I care if gays want to get married or do anything else with each other, just as long as they're not hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. 

The Andrew Sullivan-Dennis Prager debate about same-sex-marriage and perhaps homosexuality in general, is about the Constitution, freedom of choice, and individual liberty, versus religious fundamentalism and perhaps nationalism and the idea that these fundamentalist values are so powerful, that everyone else should be forced to live under them, even if they disagree with them. 

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- 'Healthcare Socialism 1, Healthcare Capitalism 0'

Source:The Dish- Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, with a look at American health care.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Commonwealth Fund quietly eviscerates America’s medical system with some basic facts. Two of the more remarkable ones:

In 2013, more than one-third (37%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when they were sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 4 percent to 6 percent in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Roughly 40 percent of both insured and uninsured U.S. respondents spent $1,000 or more out-of-pocket during the year on medical care, not counting premiums. High deductibles and cost-sharing, along with no limits on out-of-pocket costs, may explain why even insured people in the U.S. struggled to afford needed health care, the researchers said." 

From The Dish

This idea that capitalism is better when it comes to producing things that people want, but socialism is better for things that people need to live well, in other words capitalism is better for producing luxury cars, cell phones, computers (to use as examples) but a state-owned socialist system for producing things that people need to live well, take health care and health insurance (to use as examples) well, you don’t see at least in America a lot of people calling for nationalizing the food industry. 

Agriculture, grocery stores, restaurants, we all need food, right. You don’t see a lot of people in America calling for nationalizing the energy industry, only the Far-Left wants to nationalize energy. And we all need and use energy to get around and keep our homes warm and cool. 

You don’t see a lot of people calling for nationalizing banking in this country, again, only the Far-Left. We all use and need to use banks, because it is still the safest place to keep our money and we’ve all borrowed money before because we needed to that as well.

Where government comes in is to do the things that we need it to do that it is best qualified to do. And in some cases the only ones qualified to do. Like foreign policy, law enforcement, prisons, homeland security, central intelligence, regulating the markets and collecting the taxes to pay for the government that we need. 

Germany the largest country in Europe (unless you include Russia) and the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest economy in the world. This is a perfect example of a country that has shown you don’t need government-run health care and health insurance to have an affordable and quality health care system.

Germany has private health insurance from cradle to grave. Their hospitals and clinics are private as well, but what they do well unlike America at least yet is properly regulate their private health care system. So their people aren’t abused by their health care providers. And every German is required to cover their own health care costs and not able to pass those costs on to others. Things that America has just started doing and their health costs are half that of the United States.

I’m tired of hearing these bogus (Happy Holidays) arguments that the rest of the developed world has government-run health care which is why America should do the same thing. Or government is automatically better at delivering health care and health insurance than the private sector. 

Germany, France and Japan are perfect examples of countries that do not try to do everything for their people through government. Including health care and they all have better health care systems than the United States. At least when it comes to paying for their health care.

CBC Sports: CFL 1976- Grey Cup-Regina Roughriders vs. Ottawa Red Blacks: Highlights

Source:CBC Sports- the Rough Riders and Red Blacks from 1976.

Source:The New Democrat 

"1976 Grey Cup highlights Ottawa Rough Riders vs. Saskatchewan Roughriders" 

From CBC Sports

Battle of the Roughriders! You would have to be familiar with the CFL to get that joke, but one reason why the CFL doesn’t get as much respect in America as perhaps it should it because they did at least at one point have multiple clubs with the same nickname. But this was a very good Grey Cup game, 23-20 the Red Blacks as the Ottawa CFL club is called now beat the Roughriders. Ottawa was able to move the ball well and score points against perhaps the best defense in the CFL in 1976 the Roughriders that only gave up about fifteen points a game. And had the best pass defense in the CFL. They also scored 428 points so they had a very good balanced team. The Red Blacks were able to move the ball with their balanced offense and shut out the Roughriders in the fourth quarter.

The Film Archives: U.S. Representative Bob Dornan: 'Gets His Words in a One-Minute Speech Stricken Down in 1995'

Source:The Film Archives- U.S. Representative Bob Dornan (Republican, California) they didn't call Bob Dornan B-One Bob for nothing: he was a right-wing bomb thrower.

"Robert Kenneth "Bob" Dornan (born April 3, 1933) is a Republican and former member of the United States House of Representatives from California and a vocal advocate of pro-life and social conservative causes.

A boisterous former actor and television talk show host, Dornan had a flair for the dramatic that drew him supporters and detractors well beyond his congressional districts. Though never a major power in Washington, he became one of the most well-known members of the House of Representatives and has been described as "one of the leading firebrands among American politicians."

In 1995, he received a minor reprimand from the House for stating in a floor speech that President Bill Clinton had "given aid and comfort to the enemy" during the Vietnam War. In 1996, Dornan ran for President of the United States, using his campaign primarily as a vehicle to continue to criticize Clinton. In a GOP debate in Iowa on January 13, Dornan called Clinton a "criminal" and a "pathological liar." When asked why voters should choose Dornan over his Republican rivals to challenge Clinton in the general election, he argued that he had more children and grandchildren than the others, with only Richard Lugar coming anywhere near him on that score... 

From The Film Archives

Representative Bob Dornan wasn’t called ‘B One Bob’ for nothing" he had a tendency to say nutty things and throw a lot of partisan bombs out there without a lot of thought. 

Another way to describe Bob Dornan would The Blind Bomber, or Kamikaze Bomber,  because again he had a tendency to say things blindly without much though put into his comments at least as far as the consequences for saying some of the things that he did. 

B-One Bob also had an overly partisan nature and the district that he represented in California, this overly partisan approach cost him his House seat in 1996 to Loretta Sanchez. Whose still in the House today and has been there since 1997. 

Bob Dornan’s approach is very well-suited to talk radio and perhaps cable talk TV, not well-suited for Congress, even in the House of Representatives, where there are rules in place for how members address each other and how they address the President of the United States.

PBS NewsHour: Hari Sreenivasan- Nathan Gonzalez: 'Would a Third Major Party Ease Congressional Gridlock?'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Nathan Gonzalez from the Rothenberg Political Report.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"For the past 10 years, Gallup has asked: Do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job representing the American people or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed? This week, respondents saying the two major parties did an adequate job hit an all-time low, and the percentage of people saying a third party is needed hit an all-time high. Nathan Gonzales, Deputy Editor of the Rothenberg Political Report joins Hari Sreenivasan from Washington." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I’ve probably said this before on this blog, but I’m a proud Liberal Democrat and expect to be a Democrat my entire life. Unless the Far-Left were to takeover the Democratic Party, which is not likely. More likely would be a socialist third-party emerging that could actually challenge Democrats. 

But the two-party-system simply does not work and even though I do blame the Republicans especially their Far-Right and their anti-government Libertarian-Right more on this, one strong political party in America which is the Democratic Party right now if you look at the power, that they have, but also where they are on the issues compared with Americans as a whole, where they are blowing Republicans away right now, is not enough for a large liberal democracy.

One strong political party even if that political party is my party the Democratic Party is simply not enough. The two-party system right now is not just broken, but it is broken and bankrupt and failing. American voters not just themselves with their gerrymandering and their primary systems that in many cases especially the Republican Party, tend to select the most fringe candidates and people who are least interested in governing. And more interested in building their movement and becoming popular. As we see right now in the House Tea Party Caucus.

The current Republican Party is designed to fail and will go out of business as even a potential governing party, probably within ten years. And if that does happen and a real Center-Right party does not emerge to replace the Republican Party, we will become of a one-party-state in a country that is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Not healthy, because that is how centralized dictatorships get created. And why we need short-term at least a new Center-Right party to replace what use to be a Center-Right party in the Republican Party.

Northeastern and Midwest Republicans and Blue Dog and Southern Democrats need to think about creating a new Center-Right party and getting together with Center-Right Independents who are not Republicans, because of either the Religious-Right or the partisanship and the Tea Party calling them rhinos and all of that, to save our political system. Long-term I would like to see a multiple-party system going from Socialists, or Communists on the Far-Left, to Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right. Let everybody be heard and have their voice and let the voters decide who should be in power.

Progressives on the Center-Left and Classical-Liberals Conservatives on the Center-Right, for most likely always be governing America, at least at the Federal level. But short-term we need a strong Center-Right party in America to compete against the Center-Left Democratic Party for the good of our political system. So the Republican Party as it is currently set up doesn’t become a failed party. Without a strong party to replace it.

PBS: Video: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff: 'Shields and Brooks on Shutdown’s Tectonic Effect For Republicans'

Source:PBS NewsHour- New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's top political news, including how Republicans and Democrats have fared in the "catastrophic" polls coming out of the shutdown, and whether or not a solution to the stalemate is in sight." 

From the PBS NewsHour

The effect of the government shutdown on the House Republican Conference where most of the blame should be targeted, with the House Republican Leadership not being able to take on the Tea Party Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus setting out to destroy the Affordable Care Act at all costs and then a few Senate Republicans like Ted Cruz obviously, but go to Mike Lee and Rand Paul. So most of the blame for the government shutdown goes to Congressional Republicans.

And the consequences are Speaker Boehner looks like a bigger weakling than he already is. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who was already in danger of being reelected next year, facing both a strong Republican primary challenge from of course a Tea Party Republican in Mark Bevin, but whoever wins that race will face a well-funded with the backing of the entire Democratic Party, Democrat in Allison Grimes. And remember, Kentucky is not Mississippi. Democrats win at all levels in Kentucky. The governor of Kentucky is a Democrat and the state House is controlled by Democrats. Facing a very unpopular Republican in Mitch McConnell.

And the U.S. House of Representatives because the Tea Party Republicans who won Democratic seats in 2010, now have to go home and explain why they supported the government shutdown. And Northeastern Republicans, whether they are in the Tea Party or not. Who represent swing districts, will either have to take on the Tea Party. And risk a primary challenge from the Tea Party, or be in favor of the government shutdown. And risk losing their seat to a Democrat. And the Democratic Party will not let House Republicans forget about the government shutdown or be able to dodge it.

PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff: Mark Shields & Romesh Ponnuru Discuss Government Spending Showdown, Iran

Source:PBS NewsHour- syndicated columnist and PBS NewsHour political analyst Mark Shields.

 Source:The Daily Times

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor at The National Review, join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's top news, including the standoff in Congress over a federal spending bill, consequences of a government shutdown, warming U.S. relations with Iran's president and a UN breakthrough on Syria." 

From the PBS NewsHour 

The question in the House Republican Conference right now is whose in charge: the father (meaning Speaking John Boehner) or some of his little children the Tea Party Caucus. And right now it looks like the Boehner little children are in charge. And unless Speaker Boehner takes charge of his children, the Federal Government will shutdown next week.

Democrats will never agree to defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act just to do what the Federal Government is supposed to do every year that every other organization in the country has to do, which is pass an annual budget and pay their debts. 

The Tea Party Caucus which seems to be running the House Republican Conference right now, has decided to try a last stand to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And put the rest of government at risk as a result. 

CBS Sports: MLB 1993-World Series-Game 6-Philadelphia Phillies @ Toronto Blue Jays: Joe Carter's HR

Source:Dominick Clafin- "Touch em all Joe, you'll never hit a bigger home run in your life!" From Canadian sportscaster Tom Cheek, who called the 1993 MLB World Series for Canada.

Source:The Daily Times 

"This is the highlight video of the 1993 World Series game 6 where joe carter hit the game winning homer to win their second straight World Series." 

From Dominick Clafin 

"Here it is! The epic World Series-ending Game 6 matchup between the Toronto Blue Jays, and the Philadelphia Phillies.

With the Blue Jays down 6-5 in the bottom of the 9th, Joe Carter hits a World Series-winning 3-Run Homerun! One of the most incredible moments in baseball history!

Series MVP: Paul Molitor

Music: "Hearts of Courage" by Two Steps From Hell."

Source:Sky Domed- "Touch em all Joe, you'll never hit a bigger home run in your life!" From Canadian sportscaster Tom Cheek, who called the 1993 MLB World Series for Canada.

From Sky Domed

This is what game 6 of this World Series was all about: the Phillies playing for their season and just for the opportunity to get to game 7 to have another opportunity to win the 1993 World Series. The Blues Jays, playing to defend their 1993 MLB World Series Championship. And win this World Series so they don’t have to play a game 7 and risk losing this World Series. And that is what made this game so great. Because the Phillies had to win it and did their best to do so.

PBS: NewsHour- 'Brooks and Dionne Discuss Conflict in The GOP, Confronting Gun Violence'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's top political news, including prospects of a government shutdown, conflict and leadership within the Republican party, the politics of choosing a new Federal Reserve chairman and the shooting at the Navy Yard." 

From the PBS NewsHour

The Tea Party gets their vote on ObamaCare in the House and it is killed by Senate Democrats. And the House Tea Party is introduced to reality meaning that they figure out that they can’t repeal the Affordable Care Act in this Congress. That is assuming that there are enough Tea Party Republicans finally get this and say: "We’ve fought the good fight and lost. And will come back in the next Congress.” 

This is assuming a lot (and that they return to planet Earth, or at least Washington, which is close enough) and I hope that Brooks and Dionne are right in the sense that I do not want a government shutdown. 

But there are a faction of Tea Party Republicans that are in the:“I won’t give up until ObamaCare is repealed. No matter who I take down with me including the Republican Party." So we’ll see which side of the GOP wins in the end: the suicide pilots in the Tea Party, or the adults with their feet on the ground.

Pop Candies TV: Dyan Cannon- At Los Angeles Lakers Game, 2013

Source:POP Candies TV- Hollywood Goddess Dyan Cannon, at an LA Lakers game in 2013.

Source:The Daily Times

“Dyan brings some yummy brownies to this awesome Laker game!” 

From POP Candies TV 

"Dyan Cannon arrives at the Laker Game at Staples Center in Los Angeles, 03/17/13 

Thanks for watching this video!

Video Credit: Getty Images." 

Source:Sugar POP TV- Hollywood Goddess Dyan Cannon, at an LA Lakers game in 2013.

From Sugar Pop VP 

Dyan Cannon would 75-76 at this point and still looks better than women in their sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties even and good looking women as well. I mean she was born during the Great Depression, pre-World War II even and she still has guys, young guys checking her out wherever she goes. And still fills out denim jeans and boots as well or better than women young enough to be her daughter and even half her age.

The woman is not just a goddess who lives in Hollywood because she’s an entertainer, but she’s a true Hollywood Goddess. Who should be in the Hollywood Hall of Fame. ( If there’s such a thing ) A great actress, very funny, still gorgeous and baby-face adorable and has a body that makes guys young enough to her grandson want to check her out. But other than these things, just an ordinary woman. Sorry I brought her up.

The Social Design: Dyan Cannon- The Doctor Wives (1971) The Card Game

Source:The Social Design- Hollywood Goddess Dyan Cannon in The Doctors Wives, from 1971.

Source:The Daily Times

“Sassy, sexy Dyan Cannon at the country club card table, keeping the other wives nervous. From the 1971 film “Doctors’ Wives”, directed by George Shaefer. Starring Dyan Cannon, Richard Crenna, Carroll O’Connor, Gene Hackman, and quite a few others. Produced by Frankovitch Productions. This is not my material, I am just a fan. No infringement intended.” 

From The Social Design 

Dyan Cannon is one of my favorite sexy babies all time. And not just because she’s baby-face adorable, hot and with a real nice body. Even though all of those things are true, but she’s also very funny especially when she is so cute personally and she can also act.

This scene from The Doctors Wives is a pretty good example of that. These women are all married to big shot doctors who also happen to be workaholics. Who are perhaps more in love with their jobs than their wives.

The men and women are supposed to be playing cards. But Dyan or her character is horny and feels the need or craving for sex. And knows her fellow players are not satisfied with their husbands. And thinks it might be their fault that their husbands don’t spend a lot of time with them. And offers to have sex with all the men to show the women what they’re doing wrong with their men.

A very funny scene with a very funny adorable sexy hot actress, Dyan Cannon.

KKD: Civil Rights at The 1960 Republican National Convention

Source:KKD- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) at the 1960 Republican National Convention.

Source:The Daily Times

Nelson Rockefeller, was a politician without a national political party in the 1960s and 70s, because he was an  Right-Progressive (Center-Right Progressive) in a party that was moving right on economic policy. And Republicans were moving far away from progressive programs. Especially ones that were centralized at the Federal level. And we're looking for politicians that were in favor shrinking the Federal Government and decentralizing power at the Federal level and giving more power to the states and individuals.

Nelson, was essentially a Theodore Roosevelt Progressive Republican, but who was also a Federalist and someone who believed in public infrastructure, public education, aid to the poor, but who was also a Federalist and wanted these social investments run at the state and local levels. Who was also a big believer in a strong defense and law enforcement and tough law enforcement, as well as equal rights. 

Nelson was Progressive on economic policy and equal rights and even national defense. Who was able to win as a Republican, because he was a Northeastern Republican that had a strong Progressive faction, even into the 1960s.

And this debate or discussion about civil rights in the Republican Party in 1960s, is the perfect example of what type of party they were back then. You had the Progressive-Federalists, led by Nelson and others, but you also had a growing Conservative-Libertarian wing, led by Senator Barry Goldwater and other Republicans in Congress. That were strong economic Conservatives and didn’t want big government in people’s personal lives either. But we're such believers in property rights that they believed that individuals had the right to deny service people even based on race. And Vice President Richard Nixon, trying to please both factions.

CBC News: 'Canada Reacts to Quebec's Charter of Values'

Source:CBC News- a Quebec man being interviewed about Quebec's Charter of Values.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively." 

From Wikipedia 

"Organizers are hoping thousands of Quebecers will turn out tomorrow to protest the Parti Quebecois's proposed Charter of Values. The Charter would ban public employees from wearing religious clothing and symbols at work. Today - two federal ministers launched their own form of protest. And the Montreal Board of Trade warned it could harm the city's reputation.

 And people right across the country said the Charter would create a national chill." 

From CBC News

This is what statism from the Far-Left looks like at its worst. And I say this is coming from the Far-Left, because Quebec is an overwhelmingly socialist province. Statism in Canada at least to this extent with government telling people what they can and can’t wear in public. With what I at least would call Fundamentalist Atheism. (Which is what Communists tend to believe) Which is not only anti-religion, but intolerant of religion. And doesn’t believe individuals should be able to make these decisions for themselves.

This State-Atheism philosophy comes from the Far-Left, generally. And had this been a story about Mississippi, an overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian state in America, perhaps the capital of the Christian-Right in America, I would’ve called this statism from the Far-Right. Of people who tend to be intolerant of non-Christian religions. With Islam being a big target of there’s. But what is going on in Quebec is clearly statism from the Far-Left. And shouldn’t be tolerated, or any type of religious bigotry coming from government.

Canada is obviously different from America. With their own national identity, culture, way of doing things, Constitution and just about everything else. And they’re a bit left-wing, typically to begin with. But Quebec is even further left than Canada as a whole and probably the most socialist of any province in Canada. So they need to figure out these issues for themselves in their own country. Based on their values and Constitution. But this would clearly be unacceptable and unconstitutional in America and thrown out.