ABC Sports: FBS 1981- Southern California Trojans vs Los Angeles Bruins: Full Game

Source:Maineiac- SC Trojans WR Jeff Simmons.

" USC v UCLA Football - November 21, 1981" 

From Maineiac

The best big city football rivalry in college football.

The Sports Expert: '10 Most Hated NBA Teams'

Source:The Sports Expert- the Lakers aren't necessarily the most hated NBA franchise. Just the cover of this post.

"10 Most Hated NBA Teams" 

From The Sports Expert 

For me its got to be the 1989 or 1990 Detroit Pistons because they were so tough, physical, stretched the rules and were so good, despite never having the most talent in the league, but always able to play very well together. With a great head coach in Chuck Daily.

Association VAA: Laura Ingraham- Speech At RNC: July 20, 2016

Source: Association VAA- Right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham, speaking at the 2016 RNC.

"Laura Ingraham. Syndicate radio host. Full Speech at Republican National Convention  July 20, 2016  RNC 2016  Cleveland, Ohio.
FULL SPEECH: WOW! Laura Ingraham brings down the house. Laura Ingraham Makes Remarks At 2016 RNC. Laura Ingraham just showed us how Trumpism will survive after Trump. Laura Ingraham Elects to Ignore That Nazi Salute She Did. Laura Ingraham just showed us how Trumpism will survive after Trump. WATCH: Laura Ingraham Speech at RNC. Laura Ingraham just showed us how Trumpism will survive after Trump. Laura Ingraham 'Nazi Salute': The Tweets You Need to Read. Laura Ingraham courageously attacks man buns at RNC. Laura Ingraham Delivers a Speech for The Ages at The GOP.

From Association VAA

What would this new so called southern strategy be, attempting to deny people from voting literally because of their race or ethnicity, maybe even both, trying to pass laws that try to argue that states have such laws and are entitled to prevent people from voting if the government believes they represent some danger to the state and trying to argue even that states have the right to decide who can and can't vote?

Maybe even trying to pass some law and arguing that would raise the voting age and arguing that the states have the right to do that, perhaps 30-35 thinking by then adults would have lost their leftist leanings and woken up to the real world and decide they are now right wingers?  One so-called voter ID law was already thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled as unconstitutional and I bet several others are headed in that direction, especially with the elections being over and you may see the Federal Government move to speed up voting so we don't see the long lines to vote that we saw last Tuesday.

Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan's appeal to so many Americans was about individual freedom, economic and social freedom. It was a classical conservative message: "we are going to keep taxes and spending down and let you live your own lives, not interfere with what you do with your private affairs."

And then the GOP thanks to Richard Nixon and others brought in Christian-Conservatives, telling them they also believe in what they call traditional America. As well to keep them from going to some far -right party that could challenge Republicans especially in close elections they would tell them that without ever doing anything for them for the most part when it came to policy. Ron Reagan as Governor of California signed a liberal abortion law and I believe a liberal civil rights law as President. He could do this and tell  Christian-Conservatives he's really with then and once he brought them in, they really didn't have anywhere else to go.

There's that old phrase: once you're in a hole, stop digging. The GOP is currently at a cliff and about to be pushed off by young people and minorities that see them as intolerant and now prefer Democrats by 70%. And with Caucasians dying off and shrinking as a percentage of the electorate today's GOP simply can't survive as is but if they get back to Goldwater/Reagan they can bring in the new voters. That they need to remain relevant in American politics.

Mark Russell PBS: Election 76: We Get a President As Good As The American People

Source:Mark Russell PBS- with a political satiric look at campaign 76.

"From "Mark Russell Looks at Campaign '76"--clips from Russell's Dec 1975 special. It begins with a song about politicians sung to the tune of "A Modern Major General" from "The Pirates of Penzance." This special aired in 1988, and Russell does an introduction, providing some context that will help familiarize you with the political atmosphere of those bygone days. (Hint: Reagan doesn't win the nomination this year.) I love the delivery of the joke about Terry Stanford (who?!)."

From Mark Russell PBS

The two most important aspects of the 1976 presidential election had to be the Republican primaries between former Governor Ronald Reagan and sitting Republican President Gerald Ford. 

President Ford beat Governor Reagan handily in the Republican primaries early on in the winter and spring, sort of like a Super Bowl between the AFC and NFC during the mid and late 1980s, and early 90s. (For the 1 or 2 football fans that read this) And then Reagan makes a Richard Nixon like comeback in the summer of 76 and was able to take the primary season to the Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri. 

And then the general election battle in the late summer and fall between former Governor Jimmy Carter and President Gerry Ford, where you have Jimmy Carter running as someone who was no better or worst than the people who vote for him and the people he would serve. (Not exactly a natural inspirer, Jimmy Carter) 

Carter ran against a sitting President in Gerry Ford, who was running as someone who wasn't as crooked as Richard Nixon, who wasn't as conservative Ronald Reagan, and who wasn't as boring and ordinary as Jimmy Carter. Getting American voters to think: "If this is the best that America can do for President, we're in a helluva lot of trouble." 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

PBS: Mark Russell Special (1987)

Source:PBS- Political satirist Mark Russell-

“It’s three days since the 1987 stock market crash, and Mark is singing the bear market blues away. He also jokes about the recent turbulence in the airline industry & takes us through a NRA fashion show to commemorate Florida’s new gun control law. There’s even a song for Arizona’s Evan Meechum, who tried to prevent passage of the Martin Luther King holiday in their state.” 

From PBS

1987 a year that I was eleven years old for the most of it, there you have it my age, now see if you can add 24 years to that and come up with the right answer on your own. I finished fifth grade in 1987 and started 6th grade. But enough about me, this blog is not my autobiography, not enough time and I would like you to read the whole blog before you fall asleep.

1987 was a fascinating year politically and I actually remember some of those stories as a eleven year old. Democrats took over the Senate, I don’t remember hearing about that, but I knew we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress that year. Which was a very common arrangement in the 1970s and 80s, like an unhappy marriage: they stayed together for the sake of the kids, who happen to be the American voters who keep them in office.

I remember hearing about Iran Contra and even having some idea about what that was. I remember hearing the names Col. Oliver North, Admiral John Poindexter, Bud Macfarline who was President Reagan’s Director of National Security. I remember even seeing parts of the Iran Contra hearings that were held I believe both in the House and Senate on TV. I remember hearing that Vice President George Bush was going to run for President.

I remember hearing names like Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Paul Simon all Democratic members of Congress who were going to run for President. I remember hearing the name Bob Dole and knew he was the Senate Minority Leader. And what that job was and knew he was going to run for President as well. I obviously wasn’t a political junky yet, but my parents were and got to hear these stories.

1987 wasn’t a fascinating year because of these things that were happening and the people who were involved. But what was going in these people and their lives. You have two major Democratic presidential candidates, both strong progressive voices in the party, having to drop out because of personal scandals. Gary Hart a former two-term Senator who did not run for reelection in 1986 because he wanted to run for President full-time in 1988.

Gary Hart came close to winning the Democratic nomination in 1984 and was probably going to be the frontrunner in 1988. But then dares the media to follow him around because as he said he had nothing to hide. Well, if he had nothing to hide, he must of had an open marriage, because he was caught having an affair with Donna Rice who was a federal employee at one point. Their love affair could probably make a good porno movie on Cinemax, or well MSNBC.

You have Joe Biden a three-term Senator and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee who presided over the Bob Bork’ Supreme Court nomination, that’s a story by itself, have to quit his campaign because of a plagiarism scandal. No wonder Joe Biden talks so much, he has so much material to use from other people. Way to go, Joe! I could get to the rest of 1987, but I already here some snoring so I’ll spare you for now. Perhaps in a future post.

In 1987 you had great political stories inside and outside of Washington relating to the Federal Government. The Administration with Congress and of course presidential politics outside of Washington with Dick Gephardt doing well enough with his 1988 presidential campaign, that he gets elected Leader of the House for the next Congress, the 101st Congress.

And this is four years before 1992 with Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and the rest of the gang. Where you have a President go from a 90% approval rating to losing reelection in 1992 with just 37% of the Popular Vote. How time flies when your approval rating is dropping like an asteroid being dropped from a bridge. But that is American politics for you with our ups and downs, we love you until we don’t. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Mark Russell PBS: Looks at Campaign 1980: Can a Hollywood B-Actor Play President?

Source:Mark Russell PBS- political satirist Mark Russell talking about campaign 1980.

"Political comedian & musical satirist Mark Russell looks back at the 1980 presidential campaign. Remember when George H.W. Bush was against Reagan before he was for him? Do you remember when Ted Kennedy fought President Carter for the Democratic nomination? If you're too young to remember, forget about the history books and wikipedia; take a hilariously historical look back with your host, Mark Russell." 

From Mark Russell PBS 

I agree with Mark Russell that the two most important parts of the 1980 campaign season, was the primary fight in the Democratic Party between a sitting U.S. President in Jimmy Carter and a sitting U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy. For multiple reasons, but I think the two most important and interesting reasons are the facts that a Democrat would challenge another Democrat in The White House, knowing that he could lose and hurt his own party and perhaps even his own future. 

The 1980 campaign was also interesting because the Democratic campaign was a contest between someone who didn't know why they were running for President in the first place, who at least privately didn't even want to be President, (which might explain why he didn't know why he was running for President) against someone who didn't know why they should be reelected President again, because he couldn't sell his own program, agenda, and successes that he had in his 1st term as President, in Jimmy Carter.

But then go to the general election campaign where you had a former Governor of California in Ronald Reagan whose basic campaign was to make America work again, get tough on Russia, and oh by the way, I'm not Jimmy Carter. But other than the Reagan economic plan of across the board tax cuts, I don't think American voters got much of an idea of what a Reagan presidency would look like. 

Ronald Reagan running against a President Jimmy Carter, whose basic campaign theme seemed to be, he's not Ronald Reagan. He's not going to slash Medicare and Social Security or force poor people out of their public housing and kick them off of Welfare.

I think the 1980 political campaign season can be summed up this way: the last two years (1979, 80) were really bad. The problems the country we're facing were really bad. Americans want a change and new direction. They're not sure Ronald Reagan is the man to make America work again, but he's a decent, likable, funny guy and he's not Jimmy Carter. So they're going to take a chance on an ex-b-movie actor, who bombed as a b-movie actor, who thinks he can now play President of the United States, over a peanut brain, I mean peanut farmer (understandable mistake) and we'll see how the country is doing 2 years later when Congress is up for reelection. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Strode Reality: Andrew Sullivan: 'The Politics of Homosexuality: Intro On Prohibition'

Source:Strode Reality- columnist and author Andrew Sullivan giving a lecture about homosexuality, in 2010.

"Andrew Sullivan, "The Politics of Homosexuality," Princeton University, 2/18/10.

Part 1 of 7:

1. Intro & Prohibitionism part 1

2. Prohibitionism part 2

3. Prohibitionism part 3

4. Liberationism

5. Conservatism

6. Liberalism

7. Conclusion

See also: Audience question

The arguments put forth in this speech can be studied in more complete detail in Andrew's book Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, which can be purchased here... 

Source:Strode Reality

Unlike Andrew Sullivan, I'm not religious at all and therefor don't pretend to either be religious or an expert on The Bible. But I am a current affairs blogger whose very familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the American, federal, liberal, democratic, republican, form of government. And because of that, I know that America is a federal republic, not a theocracy. 

The Bible or any other religious book, can say that homosexuality is immoral and therefor it's not murder or assault, when gays are physically assaulted, terrorized, even raped, and murdered, simply because they're gay. But the United States of America is not a theocracy (Christian or otherwise) and therefor we are not governed by The Bible or any other religious book. We're governed by the United States Constitution.

And because of the U.S. Constitution, I also know because of both the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which protects Americans right to privacy and guarantees every American's right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, I know that prohibition of homosexuality, even in the privacy of consenting adults, is unconstitutional, at it should be. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Robin Smith: Hugh Hefner- 'Playboy, Activist & Rebel'

Source:Robin Smith- CBS News 60 Minutes Correspondent Mike Wallace.

"An intimate look at the out­spoken, flam­boyant founder of the Playboy empire. With humour and insight, the film captures Hefner's fierce battles with the gov­ern­ment, the reli­gious right and militant fem­in­ists. Rare footage and com­pel­ling inter­views with a remark­able who's who of 20th century American pop culture, present a bril­liant and enter­taining snapshot of the life of an extraordinary man and the con­tro­ver­sies that sur­rounded him."

From Robin Smith

I laugh every time I hear people call Hugh Hefner a radical or an extremist or immoral doing the work for the Devil. Whatever it might be because Hugh Hefner represents what an overwhelming majority of Americans say they are in favor of. And what the Far-Right and Far-Left in America are against which is individual freedom. The right of Americans to be able to live their own lives and not be dictated to by government or collectivists. Who believe they know better than Americans how Americans should live their own lives.

What makes Hef different from most Americans who believe in individual-freedom is that Hef is honest and public about his feelings as they relate to sex and how men feel about women and vice-versa and the role of both in society and so-forth. Where many other Americans who believe in the same things as Hef economic freedom balanced with personal freedom including sexual freedom, tolerance and against statism. And the political correctness police, but are not as public with their beliefs.

Hugh Hefner is not some type of Socialist radical looking to bring down corporate America and make the whole country dependent on the state for their well-being. But he’s also not some type of theocrat looking to ban all social activities that he doesn’t approve of. He represents where the mainstream of America is instead. And is very successful in corporate America himself fighting for. And promoting what he’s always been both which is individual freedom. As well economic freedom balanced with personal freedom.

Hefner united the Far-Left and Far-Right against him and in some cases for the same reasons with how his magazine talks about and promotes sex in America. Sharing his thoughts as well as his writers thoughts. But also how many other Americans feel, but who tend not to be as public about those feelings.

Hugh Hefner is not saying you must live like him and this is the American way of life. What he’s saying is this is how he lives and is the life for him. And that every other American has the right to make these decisions for themselves. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller: 1968 Presidential Announcement

Source:History Comes To Life- Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) announcing his bid for President, in 1968.

"Nelson Rockefeller announces for the Presidency 1968"

Source:History Comes To Life

If Nelson Rockefeller was alive today and still involved in public service in some way, whether it was in public office or working for non-profits, (which he did both in his very long and distinguished career in public service) what party would he be affiliated with? I think it’s clear that maybe outside of the Northeast and of course he was from New York I believe Governor Rockefeller would’ve had a very hard time getting elected as a Republican today. Especially in a Republican Party that’s now dominated by the Christian-Right. 

This is going to sound like it just came from someone whose spent the last 10 years on the Moon doing nothing by drinking alcohol and smoking pot, but what I'm about to tell you is completely true. The Republican Party up until the 1990s or 2000s, had a very strong progressive faction in it. People who I would call Right-Progressives, people whoa are center-right, but who believe not just in progress, but that a limited government could be used to help create that progress, especially for people who need to move forward and need help moving forward. 

Along with the Classical Conservatives that Barry Goldwater and others were part of in the Republican Party, the Right-Progressives used to be other dominant faction in the Republican Party. I think you could argue that Nelson Rockefeller would still be a center-right Progressive Republican today, because he tended to agree with Conservative Republicans on foreign policy and national security, as well as criminal justice. But he was very different from them as it related to a public safety net for people who truly need it, as well as a regulatory state to protect consumers and workers from predators in the economy. So I don't think it's clear which party Nellie would fit in with today. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

The Triple Play TV: 'Montreal Expos history (1969-2004)'

Source:Triple Play TV- MLB trivia question of the day: who's this Montreal Expos pitcher? If you get the answer right, then we'll both know who he is. The stakes could. be a lot higher.

The Expos for the most part were never marketed well in Montreal or the broader Province of Quebec. They seemed to believe that fans would automatically come to their games if they just won or were competitive. Apparently not being aware that Montreal was really never a baseball market and is a big city of over 1M people. In a market of over 3M people with plenty of things to do besides just baseball. And that there were other sporting events to go to besides baseball and not just Canadians hockey but CFL football and pro soccer.  Other pro sports have done well in Montreal because these are sports that Quebecers grow up with, enjoy playing and watching. But that wasn't the only problem with the Expos. 

The Expos started off playing in a real ballpark in Jarry Field. But then in the late 1970s move to the huge Montreal Olympic Stadium. Which by that point with its 65-70,000 seats was a football stadium that the Montreal Alouettes played in as well. And  pro soccer was being played there. Big mistake on the Expos management part. 

The Expos needed to market their club better and actually explain baseball to Montreal, which is not Toronto. A big market near Detroit and other Major League Baseball cities where Toronto already liked and enjoyed baseball before it got there. Montreal was new to baseball in 1969 and Montreal Olympic Stadium was simply too big with the fans being too far away from the games and not enough people wanting to go there to watch baseball. And these are the main reasons why the Expos left Montreal for Washington.  

From Triple Play TV 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

City TV Official: 'Expos Should Come Back to Montreal'

Source:City TV Official- Elias Makos.

"Could the Expos come back to Montreal? At the newly-dedicated Gary Carter Stadium in Ahuntsic, Elias Makos shares his point of view." 

From City TV Official 

Build it and it will come, which is a famous line from a baseball movie. But Montreal needs a modern baseball park that can support the team and allow for the team to be popular there. And then the people of Montreal and the Province of Quebec need to support this franchise, with a management group with the resources and commitment to winning and baseball can be successful in Montreal and always be there. 

But even if that all happens and that is still and if and a major if, Major League Baseball with the way it is currently set up with twenty-nine franchises in America, would probably not be the right home for the Expos. Not saying that they should be a AAA club. But playing at least half of their games every year in another country and taking long road trips to play just their division games in the National league or American League like they use to, might not work again. 

If Canada wants professional baseball again, let alone major league baseball, then they're big cities, including Montreal, needs to step up and say: "We are ready for professional baseball again and perhaps even Major League Baseball". And build their own Canadian League with MLB being part of that and expanding in Canada. Eight to ten clubs in Canada with two divisions and a national series. 

If that were to work, then MLB might be able to expand in America again to support the new CBL and you could see an MLB-CBL merger and create a real North American Continental Series to decide the pro-club championship of North American baseball. But putting the Expos or whatever the new Montreal club would be called back in the National League or moving them to the American League long-term, I don't believe would work again. 

Canada needs to step up with major league caliber ballparks in their big cities, like Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and perhaps even in Toronto the Blue Jays long-term and put the Blue Jays in this new major Canadian league to be able to compete long-term with America when it comes to Major League Baseball. And the way pro baseball would succeed again in Canada and be there indefinitely.  

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Bill Lee: Who Killed the Montreal Expos?

Source:Montreal Gazette- former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee.

"Former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee reminisces about his time in Montreal." 

From the Montreal Gazette 

"Former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee reminisces about his time in Montreal." 

Source:Montreal Gazette- former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee.

From the Montreal Gazette 

To put it simply, what killed the Montreal Expos was lack of support. Lack of support from the fans by the late 1990s they were drawing 5-10K fans a game for their home games. And Expos fans might say that the team wasn’t very good, but when you're only drawing 5-10K fans a game and you do not even have local media contracts like TV and radio, its hard to have the resources to put good teams on the field.  

But even with the lack of support from the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec, Montreal was a solid, but never a great baseball market in the late 1970s and 1980s and to a certain extent in the 1990s. But by the late 1990s when you are only seven thousand fans a game with is a AAA minor league crowd, you aren’t going to have the resources to compete with the big clubs that are consistent winners who are drawing thirty thousand a game or more like the New York Mets and Atlanta Braves. (To use as examples)

Then you throw in the fact that the Expos were basically stuck playing their home games in a football stadium that was built for the 1976 Summer Olympics, that held sixty five thousand fans after moving from a baseball park in Jarry Field, you are now playing in a big stadium where people do not want to go to watch baseball. But would go to watch Canadian football and rock concerts. 

But not a very good baseball environment where the seats were far away and where people in Montreal had better things to do. And you add that baseball is probably the third or fourth most popular sport in Montreal behind hockey of course, but football and even soccer. The Expos weren’t built to last at least in Montreal Olympic Stadium. Had they ever gotten a real ballpark that seated 35-40 thousand fans and had a management that was committed to winning and staying in Montreal and spending money, but spending money wisely, the Expos are probably still in business today. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

George Carlin: 'Rights and Privileges'

Source:Vimana Rama- The great comedian George Carlin.

"RIP George. What a fantastic mind. Not posting this for monetary gain, only to share my love of the funny. Please support the artists:George Carlin."

From Vimana Rama

Before I go too far into this, I’m an Agnostic and I’m not here to try to convince Atheists to become Agnostic or believers into becoming Agnostic either. Religion is for people who want it or not. Not for people to try to force their beliefs on others and that goes for Agnostics, Atheists or believers. So no, I don’t believe our constitutional rights come from God, even if one exists, again I don’t know if there’s a God, (in case you’re wondering why I’m Agnostic) which is why I don’t believe or disbelieve, but a reason why I don’t believe God gave us our rights, is because God wouldn’t be qualified to give us our rights.

God is not qualified to give us our rights because if he did, they wouldn’t be as great as they are now. They would either be less of them, which of course would be bad, because that would mean there would be more power for government. Not a good thing and of course government would say that, “well we have this power to use on your behalf”. Well my response would be, how come I can’t use the power that you just took away from me, for myself? I would love to hear the answer to that. An example of having too many rights would be the right to take innocent people’s freedom away from them, like the right to kill or hurt people intentionally, or unintentionally.

Another reason why God wouldn’t be qualified to give us our rights, because if he’s so great, why are there so many horrible things in the world? Why so many people starving, why do we have bigotry, we do we have so much poverty, why do we have so much ignorance, in the United States and around the world, how the hell does Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann ever become qualified to run for President of the United States. Why do have so many disasters, why do we have so many people living under authoritarian rule, especially East of Europe, but also in the Slavic states and so-forth. 

If God was so great, there wouldn’t be so many horrible things going on in the world. We wouldn’t have had to go through slavery in America, we would’ve never of had African slaves or any other slaves, the Jewish Holocaust would’ve never of happened and so-forth. So God didn’t give us our rights, because the people who wrote the U.S. Bill of Rights knew better. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

George Carlin: On The Death Penalty

Source:HBO- George Carlin special.

"George Carlin talks about the death penalty, i didn't see this one up so i thought i might upload it ;] If you like George Carlin, you might want to check out Bill Hicks as well.

Taken from his 'Back in Town' special in 1996

This video belongs to HBO and is used under fair use law."

Source:Seleucid9

You wouldn't be insulted if I take what George Carlin is saying here to be tongue and cheek? I know he's supposed to be a comedian, so of course you are supposed to take everything that he says seriously, (ha, ha) but if he's serious here, he's either so high that he fly to the moon by just flapping his arms. Or, he's so drunk that he put every Irish bar out-of-business and not just in Boston, but every Irish bar in all of New England and perhaps Queens, New York as well. I'm just throwing a thought out there that not everything that Carlin said about the death penalty, was completely serious. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

George Carlin: 'Honesty & Bill Clinton'

Source:Orgasmic Potato- the great political satirist George Carlin on honesty, perhaps in 1997.

“George Carlin knows where it’s at.” 

From Orgasmic Potatoe

This whole George Carlin routine about American voters and the politicians that they elect and reelect goes to his whole argument about American democracy and government, that we get the government that we deserved based on the people that we elect and reelect.

Americans all the time say they want their public officials to be honest, but let’s be real for a minute and then we can go back to the bullshit: When public officials are honest, they tend to get fired and what do public officials tend to care most about, (again goes to being real) their jobs. Which is exactly why they say one thing to one crowd and another thing to another crowd. They are pro-gun control in big cities and pro-2nd Amendment in rural areas. When they know they need the votes of both groups to get reelected.

And to go to another point about George Carlin’s argument about American democracy and government: our politicians can only be as good as the people that elect and reelect them. When we vote for and elect, good, honest, and intelligent people (which seems to happen about as often as it snows in South Florida in July) those are the folks that we get to represent us.

But when we elect and reelect crooks and liars (which happens every election cycle) those are the folks that are going to represent us. So I ask you: who’s fault is it for all of the corruption in our political system? 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Guy John: Governor Lester Maddox Says It's Not About Race

Source:The Daily Beast- Governor Lester Maddox (Democrat, Georgia)

"Gov. Lester Maddox explains that he does not serve those who feel he must serve them, whether white, black, red-headed, or bald."

Source:Guy John 

H.L. Mencken: "When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money." When Governor Lester Maddox said it's not about race, referring to why he wouldn't let African-Americans have access to Caucasian own businesses in Georgia, of course it was about race. He saw African-Americans as second-class citizens in America, pure and simple.

Lester Maddux who unless I'm mistaken was Governor of Georgia at one point, but him saying that denying African-Americans service to his business "is not about race", reminds me of the famous bank robber Willy Sutton saying that robbing banks "is not about the money". Who are they trying to fool? 

Of course the racial discrimination that came about in the form of denying African-Americans service was about race. And it was also about skin-color as well. The Anglo-Saxon South lost the ability to treat Africans as property thanks to them losing the Civil War in the 1860s. Their response was that "if we can't treat them like property, we'll do the next best things. Separating the Africans from the Caucasians. And denying them the same quality of service that we give ourselves and for the ability for African-Americans to achieve any type of education in life that will allow for them to be successful in America". 

The Neo-Confederate South lost all of the civil rights battles and losing the ability to deny service to African-Americans, I guess was Lester Maddux's last straw.

Andrew Sullivan: Why Rand Paul Matters

Source:The Dish  

For me, though, these clips make Paul’s candidacy more appealing, not less. What the GOP needs is an honest, stringent account of how it has ended up where it is – a party that has piled on more debt than was once thought imaginable and until recently, has done nothing much to curtail federal spending. Reagan was a great president in many ways, as Paul says explicitly in these clips.

But Reagan introduced something truly poisonous into American conservatism.

It was the notion that you can eat your cake and have it too, that tax cuts pay for themselves and that deficits don’t matter. This isn’t and wasn’t conservatism; it was a loopy utopian denial of math. And the damage it has done to this country’s fiscal standing has been deep and permanent. It is one of modern conservatism’s cardinal sins. And Paul is addressing it forthrightly – just as he is addressing the terrible, devastating consequences of neo-conservatism for America and the world in the 21st Century.

What we desperately need from the right is this kind of accounting. It’s what reformers on the left did in the 1990s – confronting the failures of their past in charting a new future. Taking on Reagan on fiscal matters may be short-term political death, as Corn suspects and maybe hopes, but it is vital if the GOP is to regain some long-term credibility on the core question of government solvency. Compared with the ideological bromides and slogans of so many others, Rand Paul is a tonic. And a courageous one at that. 

The New Democrat 

I really respect Senator Rand Paul and love Andrew Sullivan (you know platonically) because of their damned straight honesty and forthrightness.  Andrew, on his blog, The Dish, today compared the supply side economics of the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations with the overreach of the Democratic Party at the time of the emergence of the New Left in America. The base of that party became so radical in the late 1960s and 1970s that it gave liberalism and Liberals a bad name.  It took Bill Clinton ,in the early 1990s, to bring the Democratic Party back to Earth, so to speak, and make it a center-left party again. 

Senator Rand Paul was speaking the plain truth when he said that President Jimmy Carter had a better, more responsible and conservative fiscal record than President Ronald Reagan.  President Carter had a balanced budget as one of his goals and he pushed that throughout his presidency. He had a very rough economy and never got there but it wasn't because of the overspending of his administration or the Congress.  It was because of the bad economy of the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

President Reagan abandoned the goal of a balanced Federal budget by 1984 in late 1981 or early 1982 when his Economic Recovery Act became law.  He was getting intelligence reports about the U.S.S.R. and the mess its economy was in.  Perhaps he got the idea that this would be the time to end the Cold War and put the Soviet Union out of business.  That meant building up the Defense Department in an attempt to bring the Russians to their knees so that they had to negotiate with the U.S. in order to survive economically. 

The fact is that our last fiscally conservative president was George H.W. Bush who was no radical,  right or left.  He had a pretty conservative fiscal policy and a tight monetary policy.  Without the 1990 Deficit Reduction Act that he negotiated with a Democratic Congress we wouldn't have reached the balanced budget in 1998 that we did. President Gerald Ford is probably the most fiscally conservative president we've ever had as far limiting what the Federal Government would do and spend.  It is not Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.  They were both supply side borrowers and spenders. 

Andrew Sullivan: If America Had Scandinavia's Tax Rate

Source:The New Democrat

Jonathan Chait had a column in the, formerly liberal (ha ha) New Republic magazine arguing that, as we celebrate tax day, the U.S. should be thinking about increasing taxes on everyone across the board except for the working poor.  He based his argument on the example of Scandinavia.  They have much higher tax rates than we do and have traditionally had a very strong economy.  They have good public services with a very generous welfare state and, as a result, have had strong economic outcomes.

Ross Douhat, a columnist for the, lets say, progressive New York Times opinion page wrote a response to Chait's column.  In it, he laid out why higher taxes work in Scandinavia and why they wouldn't work here.  For example, Sweden is physically about the size of Turkey but has only about nine-million people.  Sweden is also not only energy independent but also a net-exporter of oil and gas. They produce a hell of a lot of energy with a lot of land and a small population to take care of. To put it in simple terms, they can afford to be generous with their welfare state.

The U.S., on the other hand, is physically the size of a freaking continent going from one ocean to another, with a three-thousand mile border on the North with Canada and a two-thousand mile border with Mexico on the South and a population of over three-hundred and ten million people.  It is a net-importer of oil.  We are still paying other countries for our energy supplies and paying them to defend them.

We have a seventeen-trillion dollar national debt and have been basically stuck in, or trying to recover from, one recession or another since 2001. We simply do not have the resources to pay for what we currently owe to our population.  We also have a high poverty rate compared to the rest of the developed world.  Our working class is struggling just to pay their current tax obligations.  Most Americans simply can't afford Mr. Chait's, and others, socialist, big government tax rates now.

When our economy was booming in the 1980s and 1990s, our taxes were low and our government budget to GDP ratio was low. In plain English, the percentage of the national economy that the Federal Government spent was low in the 1980s and 90s.  In both decades, we had low unemployment, high economic growth and record low poverty levels.  This is what we are trying to get back to and we need to protect middle class tax payers by not increasing their rates.  At the same time, we need to invest more in infrastructure, education and job training so that more Americans can live in freedom and not depend on income assistance. 

George Carlin: 'Jon Stewart interviews George Carlin'

Source:George Carlin- being interviewed  by fellow comedian and political satirist Jon Stewart, in 1997 or 99.

"Jon Stewart Interviews George Carlin from HBO 40 Years of Comedy."

From George Carlin:

What separates George Carlin from let's call them other counter-culture satirists and comedians on the left (let's say) who critique American society and culture, is that for one George Carlin is often more right than his other colleagues. But he also doesn't have a political agenda that he's pushing. He's not trying to get government to do this or that for the country. 

Also George Carlin's satire is bipartisan, he doesn't critique politicians in both parties just to look fair, but he critiques politicians that he disagrees with. No mater their political or ideological affiliations.

Carlin is a classical rebel in the sense that he's against the establishment whoever it.  Because he doesn't have a political agenda of his own. His real political message (if he has one) is about education and that the people need to educate themselves and stop reelecting people that keep the same system in place and that we should take responsibility for our own lives. 

Carlin didn't believe in blaming people that we elect and reelect for giving us the system that we have or where we are in life, but the people who elect and reelect the politicians who give us and maintain the current system. It's not Carlin's consistency that I admire so much, but that he's consistently right. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Pop User: 'Howard Phillips Welcomes Ron Paul (1997)'

Source:Pop User- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Howard Phillips Show, in 1997.

"Howard Phillips, founder of the Constitution Party, welcomes Ron Paul to the Conservative Roundtable. This is a classic edition from 1997. Paul talks about his run to reclaim his seat after imposing his own belief in Congressional term limits on himself, focusing on what kind of character voters are comfortable supporting. Ron Paul of course ran for president in 2008. He also discusses the 9th and 10th amendment, honest and sound money, public housing, runaway government deficit spending, inflation, the Federal Reserve - Fed, and how the public must demand real change."

From Pop User 

What I personally respect about Ron Paul is that the Ron Paul you see back in the late 1990s (in 1997) is the same Ron Paul today and fighting and believing in the same things, in what he views as a constitutional government and that the Federal Government is grown way too big and it must be limited back to where it was pre-New Deal of the 1930s and so-forth. And that we need more individual freedom both economic and personal and eliminate prohibition all together.

What I like about Ron Paul as a Liberal myself (and not a Libertarian, in Ron Paul's case) is the whole idea of individual freedom both economic and personal as well, as well as personal responsibility. But even though I believe the Federal Government is too big and more power needs to be sent down to the states and people themselves, we disagree about how much smaller the Federal Government should be. 

But where Ron Paul was sixteen years ago is the Ron Paul that we see today and is one politician that you can count on. At least to the extent that you know what he believes and that he won't change his politics when the politics change. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.