Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: Christopher Chantrill: The Four Freedoms: "75 Years of Liberal Betrayal": Say What?

American Thinker: Opinion: Christopher Chantrill: The Four Freedoms: 75 Years of Liberal Betrayal

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I’ve seen a lot of dumb blogs before that have close to absolutely no truth in them. But this post from Christopher Chantrill is right up there. It is nothing more than partisan right-wing talking points about what liberalism is supposed to be about and what Liberals are supposed to believe in. First of all, if you do not believe in Freedom of Speech even as it relates to negative speech about groups of people, or even hate speech about groups of people, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is built around Freedom of Speech and Association for all. Without fear of government especially the central government bringing down negative consequences towards you.

As far as the religious aspect from Mr. Chantrill, just to be nice. There are of course Atheists and even religious bigots in America who use their free speech rights to put down religion in America even if they aren’t big fans of free speech in America. And there are fundamentalist religious believers who use their free speech rights to put down other religions. Even if they aren’t big fans of free speech either. But the Atheists tend to be on the Far-Left people who worship the central state instead. And people on the Libertarian-Right who worship their notion of liberty instead.

To have Liberals who don’t believe in free speech, you would have to a Conservatives who don’t believe in private enterprise. Those things simply do not go together, meaning you can’t be a Liberal who doesn’t believe in free speech and you can’t be a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise. Now people can call themselves whatever the hell they want to. That is also part of our free speech protections. But for me to take you seriously as far as how you label your own politics, you have to believe in and practice the values of that philosophy. And not just use the label.

Monday, December 30, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: Trevor Thomas: Neal Boortz, Libertarianism and Moral Government: Differentiating Social and Religious Conservatism

Barry Goldwater- "I want big government out of the bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms". This is what conservatism is about, conserving freedom for the individual. Familiar with individual freedom, well that is what it is. That the state meaning government whatever the level should but out of the personal affairs of the individual and that the individual is then responsible for their own decisions in life. 
People for good and bad are held accountable for their own decision and we do not have to bail out bad or stupid mistakes of others that others have nothing to do with. And so we hold people accountable for their own decisions in life. So when people make good decisions, they are rewarded for it and get to keep most of the rewards for those good decisions. But when people make bad decisions, they are then held accountable for their own decisions instead of forcing taxpayers to pickup up the tab for that bad decision-making.
That is still the definition of the Conservative and what conservatism is. The Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan school of Classical Conservatism which is the real Conservatism in America. Which is about conserving freedom for the individual when it comes to politics. And how much better off would the Republican Party be today if they stayed with that conservative philosophy. And had they not got in bed with the Christian-Right with their brand of big government. Trying to force their religious views through government on the rest of the country. 
Sure the religious-right was helpful to the Republican Party in the 1980s and 1990s. And to a certain extent in the 1970s helping to reelect Richard Nixon as President of the United States. But the Democratic Party still dominated both chambers of Congress in the 1970s and dominated a lot if not most of the state governments as well. The GOP would be better off today because Americans tend to want big government out of their wallets. But we want big government out of our lives as well.
Now here’s the definition of a religious or Christian-Conservative. Coming from either Reverend Pat Robertson or Reverend Jerry Falwell. Someone who believes that government should be based on their fundamentalist Evangelical Christian view of the bible that is anything they view as wrong or immoral, shall be illegal ,or at least looked down upon in the strictest terms by government especially the Federal Government. And the Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg has the correct term for the religious-right and calls them nationalists when it comes to social issues. 
Christian Nationalists in America do not  believe in states right at least as it relates to social policy in this country. But instead their interpretation of the Bible dwarfs state government and perhaps even the Federal Government. That any activity viewed as wrong or immoral by the Christian-Conservative, shall be illegal. Even if the activity is between consenting adults and not hurting anyone. So there you have it the political Conservative or Conservative Libertarian, the Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan and their real Conservative followers. 
Versus  the religious-right or Neo-Right that really has only been around since perhaps the mid 1960s. And if it wasn’t for my differences between Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians on economic, foreign policy and national security, I would probably be a Conservative instead of a Liberal myself. And you can see how they are much different from the Christian-Right or Neo-Right in America.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Why JFK Still Matters

Los Angeles Times: Editorial Board: Why JFK Still Matters

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’m a Liberal Democrat because of Jack Kennedy, the more I read and watch about him, the more I like about the man. At least when it comes to his politics and it was really just his slow move to finally come out in favor of civil rights for all Americans and not just Caucasian-Americans that I give him mediocre marks. As opposed to the marks I give him when it comes to economic and foreign policy and even when it came to the safety net and public assistance in America. Where he saw the role of these programs was to empower the less-fortunate to be able to get on their feet and was a big believer in job training and education.

And if you are a Center-Left Liberal-Democrat such as myself, there are plenty of reasons to like Jack Kennedy. Because he represented the potential of American liberalism and what it could do for people. Not how it could expand government especially the Federal Government, but what it could do for people to be able to take charge of their own lives and be able to live in freedom at home. Which is what liberalism actually is rather, than being what government can do to run people’s live for them.

In many ways Bill Clinton represented Jack Kennedy had JFK lived and finished out his presidency. Because then Governor Clinton when he was running for president in 1992 spoke in terms like, “there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed with what is right with America”. Rather than speaking in terms of doom and gloom which is how Democrats were stereotyped in this era. Bill Clinton represented a positive approach into the future of America about how to make an already great county a more perfect union that benefits more if not all Americans.

Before this Democrats were seen as negative all the time “and how can we make America look bad and we need to become like Europe and stop pretending to be something that we aren’t.” And I believe President Clinton got this positive forward-looking view of America to make it a more perfect union from President Kennedy who is also one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes. Jack Kennedy represented the next generation of Liberal Democrats that was moving pass the Progressive Era and the New Deal and looking for ways to make government work for the people who need it to live better lives.

JFK wanted all Americans to be able to live in freedom. Instead of having a new agenda of social insurance programs designed to take care of people. Jack Kennedy wanted all Americans to live in freedom instead and be able to take care of themselves. And had President Kennedy lived, we do not get a Great Society of new social insurance programs. But more of what Bill Clinton was in favor of an Opportunity Society for more Americans to be able to live in freedom.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Hail To The Redskins: Blog: Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame Class

Hail To The Redskins: Blog: Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

To be blunt about this, it is about damn time that former Redskins offensive tackle Joe Jacoby went into the Hall of Fame. He should’ve went in with former Redskins offensive guard Russ Grimm together back in 2010. But both of them should’ve been in the Hall of Fame ten-years ago if not sooner. Joe Jacoby was one of the top three offensive tackles of the 1980s and his era. And Bengals offensive tackle Tony Munoz and Vikings/Broncos OT Gary Zimmerman are both already in the Hall of Fame.

And Big Jac as he was called is right there with them as the top OT’s of this era. Jacoby was both a dominant run blocker and pass blocker and a Pro Bowler who was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and four NFC Conference champions. Who without he and Russ Grimm and I would add OT Jim Lachey to this, the Redskins offense wouldn’t of been as dominant as it was. Being able to control the ball on the ground and giving three Super Bowl champion quarterbacks the time They needed to throw the ball down the field to those great Redskins receivers.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: J.R. Dunn: Barack Obama vs. Liberalism

American Thinker: Opinion: J.R. Dunn: Barack Obama vs. Liberalism

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Again it depends on what you mean as a Liberal and I’m getting tired of writing that, just as I hope you are tired of reading that. But it is important because if your idea of liberalism is so-called free stuff from government, that isn’t my brand of Liberalism and isn’t liberalism. Or government’s main role is to take care of people, is your idea of liberalism, than again you aren’t a Liberal. But my brand of liberalism and this blog’s brand of liberalism the real brand of liberalism.

Liberalism is about empowering people who need it to live in freedom, while at the same time defending freedom for everyone else. This would be the score that I would use to judge President Barack Obama in how he stacks up when it comes to Liberalism. And I have a mixed bag for him even though he still has another three years to go in his presidency. Where I give President Obama high marks when it comes to liberalism is his overall grade on what he believes government can do to help people in need and defend freedom for everyone else.

And President Obama’s overall vision for government especially as it relates to the economy and despite how he’s been inaccurately stereotyped as some big government Socialist that has a new program, or new tax hike to solve all of our nation’s problem, he’s simply not that and his record is pretty clear. No new programs to expand the safety net in America, the New Deal or Great Society. As much as partisan right-wingers do not understand this or refuse to acknowledge it, the Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover of health care in America.

The ACA is simply regulating the private health insurance industry and subsidizing people who can’t afford health insurance on their own. And if you still do not believe that Barack Obama is not a big government Socialist, why don’t you ask Socialists or Social Democrats or today’s so-called Progressives about how they feel about President Obama. Where President Obama scores badly with me as a Liberal when it comes to liberalism, has to do with national security and civil liberties and things like privacy, the Patriot Act.

President Obama has given a Christmas sized gift to Neoconservatives as far as the Patriot Act and the weakening of privacy in America. And of course the failed War on Drugs that has been expanded in this country under him. The Healthcare.Gov roll out has been a failure, but that doesn’t have much to do with liberalism as it has to do with bad governing. Not doing their homework and being prepared for all the people who would be interested in going to the site to get health insurance.

I’ve blogged this before, but Barack Obama is not a hard-core Liberal and hasn’t been one at least since he left the U.S. Senate to become President of the United States. His record in Congress shows a fairly liberal record, but as President he’s moderated more to meet the challenges that his administration has faced and still faces. And at best he’s a Moderate Liberal and not that Liberal Democrat that I believe a lot of Democrats were hoping for to move this country back to liberalism. And the next phase of American liberalism following Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: Sierra Rayne: Big Government and Lower Economic Growth

American Thinker: Opinion: Sierra Rayne: Big Government and Low Economic Economic Growth, An American History

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I guess when you are talking about big government, it depends on what type of big government you’re talking about. Because both sides of the ideological isles let’s say have different versions of what actually is big government. And in some cases both wings have different versions of what big government is among themselves. The Religious-Right and Libertarian Right on the right-wing, perfect example of that and of course the. Socialist Left and Liberal Left on the left-wing, but since this article is how government relates to the economy, I’ll start with that and then go from there.

If big government is so bad for the economy, first of all anyone who believes that should first give their own definition of big government. Because compared with the rest of the developed world the U.S. Government is pretty small. Perhaps only Switzerland and Canada have smaller federal governments than we do. But even if you go by American historical standards, the United States has had a safety net for now eighty years. Which is one-third of our history as a country, but if you compare where we were as an economy pre-1933 lets say, we are much better off now than we were eighty-years ago.

And that includes things like the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the payroll tax. Plus the business regulations of the Progressive Era, we are now the economic power of the world with the largest economy in the world. As well as the military power of the world and thanks to the Federal Highway System we now have one of the best infrastructure systems in the world as well that we didn’t have eighty years ago. And the Federal Government has played a big role in this economic development.

Do we really want to go back to a time when seniors had to live off their kids who had their own bills to pay because so many seniors in this country didn’t have a pension or a pension big enough to pay their bills? Or back to a time with slave-wages and unsafe working conditions, because this part of the small government legacy of America that a majority of Americans do not want to see again. Plus America is not some socialist state or republic and we do not expect government to do everything for us anyway as a country.

And again our Federal Government is roughly half that of the European Union and United Kingdom or Scandinavia. And we won’t become a country at least in the near-future that has some type of welfare state that tries to make most of the economic and personal decisions of the entire country. Which is what you see in Europe at least in some cases. Again as I stated before it depends on the meaning of big government. I’m not in favor of big government or small government, but a good government that is limited and does the things that we need done as a country that government happens to be most qualified to do whatever the level of government is.

And big government at least to me and a lot of other Americans is government trying to do too much with the people’s money that people can do for themselves. And are better off doing for themselves and in some cases our government is too big. And one of reasons for the waste and lack of accountability in it. But you are going to have a hard time finding a large percentage of Americans who want to go back to 1930, or bring the European Socialist welfare state to this country.

Monday, November 18, 2013

USFL Forever-ESPN: USFL 1985-Week 8- Oakland Invaders @ Birmingham Stallions: Full Game

Birmingham Legion Field-
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Stallions quarterback Cliff Stoudt was Terry Bradshaw’s backup for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Just another example the fact that the USFL was major league football. Not a league of career cab drivers, food service workers, or construction workers living out their dreams as pro football players. But guys who not only went to college, but played major college football and at major college football programs. And then were either drafted in the NFL or USFL and played there and in many cases played in both leagues. When perhaps they weren’t given the opportunity to actually play in the NFL and not just sit on the bench. And the Oakland Invaders and Birmingham Stallions were two of the best franchises in the USFL.

Sigman 2710: Video: ABC Sports: USFL 1985-SF-Baltimore Stars @ Birmingham Stallions: Full Game

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Baltimore is the only city that has won the NFL Championship including three Super Bowls, the CFL Championship the Grey Cup and the USFL Championship in 1985. Baltimore is a crazy football city as far as how much they love pro football, that only lost the Colts because of the poor Colts management under Bob Irsay and that they weren’t given enough time to replace Baltimore Memorial Stadium and build a new stadium for the Colts. Or the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland failed to make that happen. But not because they longer wanted NFL football and no longer wanted the Colts. And you can give me the poor attendance figures of the Colts the last few seasons all you want. But the fact is that the Colts were one of the worst franchises in the NFL in the early 1980s under Irsay and company. And that is what Indianapolis got in 1984 and what Colts fans were not going to support and subsidize.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

USFL Forever: Video: ESPN: USFL 1985-Week 12-Los Angeles Express @ Oakland Invaders: Full Game

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The old Oakland Coliseum was a strange place for football. Because it was basically a baseball park that was renovated so the Raiders could play football there. And then later so the Invaders could play football there as well. But the old Oakland Coliseum was much better suited for baseball than football and had a better baseball feel. The Oakland Coliseum looked strange for football, because the Invaders played during the baseball season when the Athletics were playing. And you had the outfield seats of the baseball park essentially on the sidelines of the football field. And the Coliseum was an open air ballpark before the Raiders came back in 1985. Which meant the outfield was a single deck. Most football stadiums the sidelines have multiple decks, because those are where the best seats are for the game. And teams want to be able to seat as many people there as possible.

Friday, November 15, 2013 Opinion: Leonard P. Liggio: Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism Opinion: Leonard P. Liggio: Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I guess it depends on what you mean by classical liberalism. If you talk to a Libertarian or anyone who isn’t what I would describe as a real Liberal, someone whose not a Social Democrat or a Libertarian, but a real Liberal in the American tradition, classical liberalism is today’s libertarianism and Classical-Liberals are today’s Libertarians. As a Liberal myself classical liberalism is not only today’s liberalism but yesterday’s liberalism and the liberalism of the future, in that it is about the individual without being anti-government, but pro-individual.

And that the number one job of government is to protect individual freedom for those who have it and expand it for those who need it. And that everything that government does from education, to national security and foreign policy, to the safety net and regulation, everything that government does being based on protecting and expanding freedom, not running people’s lives. And making and keeping people dependent on government for our daily economic survivals. The first version I gave you is what liberalism really is and what it has always been. The second version is something else.

Liberalism is not about a superstate or a welfare state that is there to make most of the decisions for everyone in the country. Including local and state government’s and basically trying to run the lives for the people even to the point that it tries to protect people from themselves. So no one has too much or too little, meaning no one completely independent of government economically and personally. And no one having to go without the things that people need to live well. That is what is called ‘modern liberalism’, a term I hate. Because it is not liberalism at all. But a form of leftist statism whether it is socialism or something even further to the Left.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Napa Valley Register: Opinion: Kevin Eggers: Difference Between Individual Rights and Privileges

Napa Valley Register: Opinion: Kevin Eggers: Difference Between Individual Rights and Privileges

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Without individual rights that come under a national constitution like the United States Constitution, we can’t have anything that looks like a liberal democracy. Meaning a country where the people have the freedom over their own individual lives. That is why the Constitution is so important, which I hope I made clear last night. Otherwise we would just be a place where government governs itself and the people and really except for perhaps elections. Where again elections wouldn’t be guaranteed either without a Constitution guaranteeing them for us.

Because government would then be able to stop elections from happening in the first place. We would still be at the mercy so to speak of the Federal Government and dependents on them. Instead of the people they are supposed to serve, which is different. So the individual rights that we have in America are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and that is the document that constrains what the government can do.

Privileges are different things that government can give to the people by passing laws. Things like health care and health insurance for the elderly population and the people who live in poverty. Unemployment Insurance for people who are out of work. Food Assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed themselves. Welfare Insurance for people who do not have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. That allows for them to be able to take care of themselves and not need public assistance in order to survive.

These aren’t constitutional rights but public subsidies that the Federal Government has decided to give certain populations in order for them to be able to survive and to benefit the community as a whole. To have fewer people living on the street and ending up stealing to fill the gap that they have, that doesn’t allow for them to be able to pay their own bills.
Constitutional rights are things that we always have because they are almost impossible to repeal. But privileges or subsidies are things that government gives people to make their lives easier for them.

Because they do not make enough money to take care of themselves. But they can always be taken away from people by an act of Congress and a presidential signature. When the Federal Government decides to take those things away.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: Phillies TV: MLB 1983-NLCS-Game 4-Los Angeles Dodgers @ Philadelphia Phillies: Full Game

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I don’t believe there was a better pitcher you would want pitching in a big game, a series clinching game than Steve Carlton. When he was on and generally that was most of the time, I believe he was the best of the 1970s and 80s. The only other two pitchers I would consider would be Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer of this era. And this is what the Dodgers were facing on the road at Philadelphia Veterans Stadium against perhaps still the best pitcher in the game at this point, certainly in the National League in Steve Carlton. And having to beat Carlton just to force another elimination game which would’ve been game 5. This game was perfectly set up for the Phillies. At home, with their best pitcher, if not the best in MLB and playing to eliminate the Dodgers and move on to the MLB World Series.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Reason: Video: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Jonathan Rauch, Twenty-Years of Political Correctness

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’m not a fan of political correctness myself, because I am a Liberal not because I’m not a Liberal. I’m against all racial and ethnic slurs and all other types of slurs that try to paint one group of people as they are. All the way, but again as a Liberal I believe in the First Amendment and the ability for people to speak freely. As long as they aren’t threatening or libeling people in a negative way or inciting violence in public. And those are really the only exceptions we have to our First Amendment in the United States.

Just because people have negative, bigoted and ignorant views about others, doesn’t mean they do not have a right to express those opinions. As long as they aren’t calling for those people to be harmed physically or economically in any way. If you are a Liberal, you believe in the First Amendment and are in favor of it. And you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is about one’s ability to speak freely and assemble in public and in private. And you take away free speech, you do not have much if any remaining of what can be called a liberal democracy. Because you are taking people’s freedom away from them.

So when I hear these political speech codes from people who are supposed to be on the Left, because someone or a group of people are saying things that these leftist groups find offensive, because it offends people they support, generally racial or religious minorities, or political minorities on the Far-Left, like Communists and Socialists, one I disagree with them. Because we all as Americans including the Far-Left have the First Amendment right to express ourselves and have our own opinions. Including the Far-Left and Far-Right.

But it gives me the impression that some at least on the Far-Left do not believe in free speech, or at least free speech that they disagree with. But the other thing that gets me as a Liberal is when I hear supporters of what is called the political correctness movement, people who are supposed to be Liberals, when of course they are not, because they believe in a form of fascism. “That is you can say what you want and believe in what, until you offend us. And that is when we are going to try to shut you up. And there is nothing liberal about that.

It is pretty simple. If you are a Liberal you believe in free speech and the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. But perhaps a Fascist either from the Far-Left or Far-Right. Bigotry is an awful thing and in many cases illegal in the United States when it is put into action. But that doesn’t mean Americans do not have a right to be stupid, it just means they do not always have a right to act on those stupid beliefs. When they hurt innocent people with them. Like denying people jobs based on race, ethnicity, gender to use as examples.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: Jim Yardley: "A Different View of Paternalism"

American Thinker: Opinion: Jim Yardley: A Different View of Paternalism 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

There are two forms of paternalism at least as I see it. One that obviously comes from our parents as shocking as that may sound and I believe the only people it should come from. And as annoying as and in some cases positive parental paternalism may sound, our parents at least tend to have our best interests at heart even when they go too far.

But then there is what I call governmental paternalism whether it comes from governmental laws, or proposals to create new paternalistic laws and they are basically built around the notion even if they are done with the best intentions, that government knows best what the people themselves need for their own good. Things like proposals to outlaw homosexual activity or pornography from the Far-Right. To having the Federal Government regulate marriage in the United States.

To paternalistic proposals from the Far-Left in trying to regulate what people can eat, drink or smoke for our own good. Because paternalists on the Far-Left believe they know best what people should be eating, drinking and smoking. And as much as right-wingers especially those right-wingers who may have some governmental paternalistic views when it comes to social issues, like to label the Affordable Care Act as paternalistic, it is not. Because what it does with the minimum health insurance requirement is to say that everyone is required to have enough health insurance to meet their own individual health care needs.

So people in America can’t past their own health care costs on to other people. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t require people to live healthy and take care of themselves. What it says is that we are all responsible for our own health care costs at least those of us who can afford our own health insurance. And for those of us who choose to live unhealthy, they can still do that, but they won’t be able to pass the costs of their unhealthy decisions on to other people.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Hoops Encyclopedia: Video: Bulls-TV: NBA 1985-Chicago Bulls @ Philadelphia 76ers: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

The 76ers still had a lot of talent in 1985. Just look at their starting lineup featuring four Hall of Famers in it with Julius Erving, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley and Maurice Cheeks. The Bulls were a young and up incoming team, but most of the guys who won championships with the Bulls in the early 1990s were not there yet. With the 76ers having won the NBA Finals in 1983 and made it back to the Eastern Conference Finals in 1984.The Bulls of this period, other than maybe Orlando Woolridge, who was pretty solid and an up and down Steve Johnson at power forward, this was still the Air Jordan Show in Chicago. With the help that the Bulls needed to be a real Eastern Conference contender, about three years away with Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Fishy Paw: Video: Airplane 1980: Everything is Fine Up Here: Oh by the Way, Can Anyone Fly a Plane?

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

Everything is fine up here in the cockpit. Oh by the way can anyone fly this plane so we do not crash? That’s right, the only problem that we have in the cockpit of this commercial passenger plane, is that we don’t have anyone who can fly the plane. Which is no worst than doctors who are about to perform brain surgery on someone so they can save that person’s life, but do not have anyone who knows how to perform brain surgery. Or an English teacher who doesn’t speak any English.

Other than these issues, there’s nothing to be worried about. No reason to panic, I mean seriously what is the worst thing that could possibly happen with one being able to fly a plane that is already in the air, the plane crashing? I mean come on! The plane is already insured, so the money there will to replace the plane. And most of the passengers are wealthy anyway, so they probably have life insurance. I mean seriously, these passengers didn’t have to get on this plane to begin with.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Democracy Now: Video: Kevin Phillips on Roots of American Revolution, Future of American Politics

Democracy Now: Video: Kevin Phillips on Roots of American Revolution, Future of American Politics

When you think of the United States of America, you think of a government that has separation of powers and checks and balances. And why is that, because the United States was founded on the notions that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because America broke away from the United Kingdom of Britain. That had a king who was essentially a dictator and Americans for the most part are suspicious of centralized power. And having so much power in the hands of one government. One branch of government and most importantly, one person like a dictator. Whatever the title of the dictator is. We are a constitutional federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We are governed by our Constitution. Not by a Bible, or any other religious book. Which are some of the differences between a liberal democracy like America and a Theocracy like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Because we are a liberal democracy, Americans have a lot of freedom and responsibility. Including a constitutional right to practice religion, any religion we want to practice. We also have the freedom not to practice religion if we choose to. But because we are a liberal democracy, we are not governed by religion. But our Constitution which is one thing that makes us different from Iran. We don’t have a central government religious, or otherwise, telling us what we can have and can’t have and how much of it that we can have. With a central government responsible for seeing that we get what we need and how much of that we can get. The Far-Right of the Republican Party, the Christian-Right, doesn’t like the Islamic Republic of Iran. But they like at least certain parts of their system. That their government is governed by religious views and policy. And would bring that to America, if only they could.

But again, what makes America better and different from Iran, or at least one thing, is that we aren’t govern by religion. Because our Religious, or Theocratic-Right, simply doesn’t have the numbers that it has in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or several other countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, was successful in bringing the South to the Republican Party and with it the Religious-Right. And people who want Christianity to become the official religion of the United States and for us to be governed by their views of the Bible and everything else. But again, the Religious-Right, is a large faction of one political party. That is losing numbers in the country and perhaps even in the GOP. Especially with the GOP’s growing Conservative Libertarian wing. And Christian Conservatives, will never have the success n America, that the Islamists had in Iran.

Friday, October 11, 2013

MH Jets: Video: CBC Sports: NHL-1987-Stanley Cup Finals-Game 6-Edmonton Oilers @ Philadelphia Flyers: Third Period

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

I only remember reading about this series and seeing highlights of it on some sports show the next day. I was eleven years old at this point and my family didn’t have cable yet and this series wasn’t on American network TV. But I knew the Flyers were really good at this point. I remember them being beating my Capitals in the conference playoffs that year. In game 7 and in overtime.

I hated the Flyers back then and I still do. They were the Capitals arch-rival back then and I still consider them to be, especially since we are back in the same division. Have a great history of great tough physical games each other. Which both teams playing a similar style of tough hockey. Witch clutch scoring and solid goaltending.

This series represents NHL hockey at its best. Two great all around teams with a lot of skill, who are also physical. And the NHL needs to get back to that, instead of trying to make hockey like indoor soccer. In order to pick up young American fans who don’t appreciate defense in any sport. And are only interested in seeing a lot of scoring.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

FRS Real Life Journal Plus: Blake Lively- Out in Jeans in Boots

Source: FRS Real Life Journal Plus- Blake Lively, in jeans in boots-

Source: FRS Real Life Journal Plus

You can see why sexy celebrities perhaps especially female ones are so popular in skinny jeans, especially with boots and why they get so much attention in that combo while they are out in public. Perhaps especially on Facebook and YouTube. But also why so many celebrity interest bloggers and I’m not one of them for the most part, but why they blog about celebrities sexy women especially celebrities in their jeans and boots. Because when they wear that combo people notice right away and their jeans and boots get noticed right away. Which is great business for everyone involved. Blake Lively a young gorgeous woman with good height and beautiful legs, as well as but, is a perfect example of this. When you’re that attractive especially when you’re young and female, you want to the rest of the world to know as well. And skinny jeans with boots, is the prefect way to do that.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Johnny Carson: NBC’s The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Politician Taking a Polygraph Test

Johnny Carson: Video: NBC’s The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Politician Taking a Polygraph Test

If all American politicians were required to take polygraph tests, no American politician would ever get elected yet reelected in America, because Americans tend to like being told what they want to hear and not what is the truth. Like saying “we can do this, but it costs money, which means I’ll have to raise your taxes or cut spending somewhere else”. And when politicians tell the truth, they tend to pay a heavy political price for that. Truth serum would be death penalty for the careers of American career politicians.

But imagine what a bad politician would sound like on truth serum. “Senator Jones, why did you vote against the gun control bill? Because the NRA has me on in their back pockets, but both back pockets, as well as the front pockets. Yeah they bought me off. Oh be the way, my constituents aren’t going to know about this, are they? Because then I would actually have to get a real job and work for a living”. Or you ask a crooked politician why they voted against the school reform bill that increases standards on teachers and students. Imagine a crooked politician on truth serum answering that one.

The crooked politician with a 90 plus approval rating of the teacher unions might say this. “Because in that bill, school districts would be able to fire bad teachers. Which would mean people would be out of jobs, even the bad teachers. And I rather have bad teachers teaching, even if that means their not students not learning, then for them not to be working at all. Or having to something that they are more qualified for. Like flipping burgers and taking parking tickets, asking customers if they want paper or plastic. Oh by the way teacher unions have bought every pocket I have in all of my pants”.

But we wouldn’t need truth serum or polygraph tests for crooked politicians, if we simply had an educated electorate. And what does that mean? A lot of educated voters who know who they are voting for, before they actually vote for that person or decide not to vote for them. Which sounds like commonsense I know, but again we’re talking about America where commonsense is not always common, because it is not always popular. And Americans tend to prefer to feel good, then to know what is good for them. Our political system is a perfect example of that.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- A Conversation On Minimum Wage

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now Plus

I’m in favor of the minimum wage as anyone whose concern about welfare spending and what we pay on public assistance as taxpayers in America. But as someone whose not in favor of government kicking people off of public assistance who do not have the skills to take care of themselves, should be in favor of the minimum wage and even increasing the minimum wage under certain circumstances. To encourage more people to work and not stay on public assistance indefinitely. You want more people working and not just working, but earning enough money to take care of themselves and earning a middle-income better, than the minimum wage should not only be there, but pay more than not working at all. Otherwise low-skilled adults will choose Welfare and not working, over level-entry jobs.

These are the reasons why I’m in favor of a minimum wage. If you want to get past the idea that all work should be valued up to a certain point, that is people making enough money that they have a shot to advance in life and pay their basic bills even at discounted prices like with public housing, food assistance, health insurance to use as examples, but not indefinitely, but to buy them time so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job. That comes with education and job training for low-skilled working adults. But also to encourage more people to work so people would make more money working whatever the job is. Than not working that is people who aren’t retired. So someone working let’s say full-time at a higher minimum wage jobs whether it is 10-12 bucks an hour, would make more money than the person at home unemployed without the skills that they need to get a good job. And have that person given money through government at what a full-time worker making $7.25 and hour. Today’s minimum wage so low-skilled adults see that they can make more money working than not working even at the minimum wage.

One of the beauties of a public assistance system like this is that it would come with work requirements. For able body and mentally able adults, not being educated wouldn’t be an excuse for choosing not to work. You want food assistance, get a job, you want Medicaid, get a job, you want public housing, get a job. And there would be a time period for people just getting on public assistance to get a job and they could get help finding that job as well. And while they are working even at a low-skilled job they would even be eligible for assistance to finish their education. And get job training so they could get a good job that empowers them to get off of public assistance all together. The other beauty in a system like this is that we would increase the minimum wage to 10-12 bucks an hour even index it for inflation and have a break in it for small employers or all employers and allow for them to deduct lets says thirty percent of that from their taxes.

It is pretty simple, if you think we spend too much on public assistance in America and again you do not want to see government kick people off of public assistance who can’t take care of themselves, or you think we have too much poverty in America, then you’re for a more livable minimum wage. And more education and job training for our low-skilled workforce. So they don’t have to take minimum wage jobs in the future. Because now they have the skills to get themselves good jobs. And we have people who believe we have too much poverty and too many people on public assistance. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, (no one’s Socialist) is a great example of that. And you want more people working and fewer people collecting public assistance in the future. Then you would be in favor of a public assistance system like this.
Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- A Conversation on The Minimum Wage

Jean-Sebastien Blondel: Video: CBS Sports: NBA 1987-ECQF-Game 5-Philadelphia 76ers @ Milwaukee Bucks: Last Minutes of Julius Erving's NBA Career

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

A bad way for The Doctor Julius Erving to end his great sixteen-year professional basketball career as a player, in a blowout loss on the road to the Milwaukee Bucks of all teams. Because the Bucks and 76ers played a lot of great series’ and games against each other in the 1980s. And Bucks beat the 76ers in the playoffs. So this was probably one of the last ways that The Doctor wanted to end his brilliant career as perhaps the greatest all around small forward of all-time. But his career ending this way wasn’t because of him. It wasn’t his best game obviously, but 1987 was a rough year for the 76ers that had all sorts of injuries and had to play hard just to make the Eastern Conference Playoffs. And because of all the series injuries, were never a real threat to dethrone the defend NBA champion Boston Celtics. So it’s not surprising that Julius’s career ended this way, but it is a damn shame. It would’ve been great to see at least one more classic playoff series between the Bird Celtics and the Erving 76ers. But the Bucks weren’t going to allow that to happen.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- A Conversation On The Free Market

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now Plus

We need to get past the notions of free market and free enterprise. Because those things simply do not exist in the developed world as much as Libertarians or economic Libertarians, like to use these terms. But they are talking about things that aren’t real. Any economic system that is subjected to taxes and regulations which exist everywhere in the developed world, as well as developing world are not part of any free market. What developed nations or developing nations that are developing fast like Brazil or Mexico or China have, as well as the developed world have are private markets and private enterprise. Private enterprise, is a private economic system run by individuals. But subjected to taxes and regulations by government. To perform government services that individuals consume.

And the difference between free enterprise and private enterprise or private markets and free markets and private enterprise and free enterprise, is that in a private enterprise system like in America or Canada to use as examples, is that they have private enterprise economic system. Where a lot or most of the economy is in private hands owned by people, not government. Which is a private sector, but these private enterprises are subjected to taxes and regulations by government. If these countries had free markets and free enterprise, these private companies wouldn’t be subjected to taxes and regulations. Private companies, aren’t free to be bigoted towards their employees, or potential employees, or customers. Or free to pollute the air. They would be in a free market however.

In a true free enterprise system, (and not a made up one) private companies could essentially if not in complete actuality, do whatever they want under law with their companies. Because they wouldn’t have to pay any taxes, or have to deal with regulations, like monopoly laws, because there would essentially be no rules of the road. Because it would be a free market economic system. That is just not the economic system that we have in America, or anywhere else in the developed world. As much as Ayn Randian’s dream about in their fantasies for that to come about. If you truly believe in a free market and free enterprise, then you would be against things like corporate welfare. And other taxpayer-funded investments in the economy. And let the true free market decide the success’ and failures of private business’s.

Why, because you don’t want government involvement in the economy and taking taxpayer money. But many so-called Conservatives, support corporate welfare and don’t even view it as welfare. So lets stop throwing around labels and terms as if they don’t have any real meaning. We obviously don’t have a socialist economic system at least in a pure form. And no developed country does. (And thank God for that!) But again no developed country in the world has an economic system where charity and economic assistance, is in complete private hands. Where taxes and regulations don’t exist. Which is a great thing, because if we did we wouldn’t have the national highway system, to use as an example. Because that wouldn’t be very profitable for private companies.
Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- A Conversation on The Free Market

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Liam Leahy: Video: NBA 1986, The Boston Celtics Win Sweet Sixteen

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

1986 was a very interesting NBA season with the upstart Houston Rockets with their twin towers Hakeem and Ralph Sampson. And their very good and up incoming backcourt Mitchell Wiggins Louis Lloyd and of course the Rockets upsetting the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Finals. And of course the 1986 Boston Celtics who had the MVP in forward Larry Bird who was the best player in the NBA in 1986. And leading the Celtics to the 1986 NBA Finals Championship over the Houston Rockets. 

And perhaps the 1986 Celtics were the best passing team and big team of all-time. With all of their stars and former stars upfront, in Larry Bird a 6'9 small forward who was big and strong enough to be an all star power forward. But with great passing, ball handling and shooting skills of the great small forward and the best small forward of all-time that he definitely is. And the two great big man down low in power forward Kevin McHale and center Robert Parish. And if that is not great enough, Bill Walton off the bench. 
But 1986 wasn't just about the Celtics and Rockets. You also had the Lakers taking a step back and not just failing to defend their 1985 championship, but not even getting back to the NBA Finals. You had the emergence in the Eastern Conference Playoffs with the Atlanta Hawks. Who looked like they were going to be an Eastern contender for years to come led by Dominique Wilkins and the emergence of the Detroit Pistons as a serious Eastern Conference contender as well. 
1986 was a great year for the NBA, because it proved that the NBA was more than just the Lakers and Celtics and even Philadelphia 76ers. That there were other very good if not great teams that were perhaps just one or two players away from winning the NBA Finals as well. Like the Rockets, Hawks and Pistons and even the Dallas Mavericks. That the future of the NBA was going to very good if not great.