John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Friday, June 28, 2019

George Carlin: 'Would Love To See A Completely Anarchistic Human Race'

Source:George Carlin- George Carlin: The Socialist-Anarchist
"Radio interview with Art Bell"

Source:George Carlin: 'Would Love To See A Completely Anarchistic Human Race'


Source:Fnord University- "Libertarians and Anarchists LOVE this meme!"
From Wikipedia

"Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism or anarcho-socialism) is a non-state form of socialism and is considered to be the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as being interdependent with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality, while respecting the individual and individual thought. The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism."

So, from reading up on what's called socialist anarchism, it looks like there would be a socialist society ( if they got their way ) but with no government. Just a large community of individuals living together, but without any topdown authority not just telling people what they can and can't do, but not doing anything for them either. Where everyone there would be there to share what they have with each other, because they want to, but not because they're being forced too.

Imagine the largest hippie compound somewhere out in the middle of nowhere California or some state with a lot of rural territory. Or Jonestown ( if you're familiar with the Socialist Reverend Jim Jones ) but without the crazy, murderous dictator. Or imagine The Manson Family compound ( if you're familiar with Charles Manson ) but without the crazy, murderous, spiritualist cult leader.

This might sound crazy, but I could see how Libertarians would like this philosophy, because of the voluntarist aspects to it, instead of the state mandating it. And I could see how Socialists would hate it, even though socialist anarchism ( which is not an Oxymoron ) would hate this and I'll explain that.

The Libertarian positives about this are obvious: a community of people coming together, that polices themselves and voluntarily shares their property. Not Uncle Sam or Uncle Fidel, or Uncle Adolf, Uncle Joseph, or any other big government uncle coming by, not knocking on someone's door, but knocking to down and confiscating someone's property. And saying that these people have too much and these people have too little and big government is going to come in and equal the score. ( So to speak ) I'm guessing that there's no such thing as Robin Hood in a socialist anarchist society.

It's also easy to see why Socialists would hate socialist anarchism, even though it's a form of socialism. Socialist anarchism, is left-wing anarchism, just like anarcho-libertarianism is right-wing anarchism. The reason why Socialists would and I'm sure do hate socialist anarchism, is because it's voluntary. With the Socialist thinking: "wait, you're actually going give people the freedom to manage their own lives and affairs. That's the job of big government, not individuals."

Socialists tend to believe that the world is too complicated of a place for individuals to successfully manage their own personal and economic affairs. And in George Carlin's case especially, Socialists tend to see America specifically as too complicated a place for individuals to manage their own affairs. And Americans specifically as too stupid to manage their own personal affairs.

If you're familiar with my recents posts about George Carlin, you might think that I see him as some type of Libertarian or Classical Liberal, ( Classical Liberals, are the real Liberals ) but he wasn't. Yes, he was a hardcore individualist when it came to personal freedom, freedom of speech, and individuality. But when it came to economic policy, what's called identity politics, cultural issues, American life and America in general, how he felt about Americans, he was right inline with the New-Left Socialist thinking and philosophy of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Which meant George Carlin sounded like Ayn Rand on social issues and on individuality, but he was right inline with Professor Angela Davis, political activist Tom Hayden, and other New-Left Socialist activists from that period. When you think about George Carlin's politics, think about peanut butter on a hot dog; might sound like a crazy and nasty combo, but it worked for him because that's who he was.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Dennis Prager: 'Clarity About Nationalism'

Source:Townhall- An American Patriot?
"In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.

The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But in a second paragraph, it adds, “especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Let’s be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this definition is what some people have in mind when they call themselves nationalists.

At the same time, even anti-nationalists would have to acknowledge that if the first paragraph is the definition of “nationalism,” nationalism can often be a beautiful thing.

So, if we are to be honest, the answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad is “How do you define it?”

Read more from Dennis Prager

Source:Crash Course: John Green- 'Samurai, Daimyo, Matthew Perry, and Nationalism: Crash Course World History'- A less serious look of nationalism 
"In which John Green teaches you about Nationalism. Nationalism was everywhere in the 19th century, as people all over the world carved new nation-states out of old empires. Nationalist leaders changed the way people thought of themselves and the places they lived by reinventing education, military service, and the relationship between government and governed. In Japan, the traditional feudal society underwent a long transformation over the course of about 300 years to become a modern nation-state. John follows the course of Japanese history from the emergence of the Tokugawa Shogunate to the Meiji Restoration, and covers Nationalism in many other countries along the way. All this, plus a special guest appearance, plus the return of an old friend on a extra-special episode of Crash Course."

From Wikipedia

"Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.[8] There are three paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernism proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that needs the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[9]

There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared ethnicity, heritage and culture, while civic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared citizenship, values and institutions, and is linked to constitutional patriotism. The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has often been a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to mismatch between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in an anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[10] This anomie results in a society reinterpreting identity, retaining elements deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[10] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are (or are deemed to be) controlling them.[10] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism."

Even right-wing commentator Dennis Prager, ( who is currently a board member of the President Donald J. Trump For Life Fan club. Ha, ha. ) acknowledges in his own column about nationalism that there's bad nationalism and good nationalism. And in his pro-nationalism definition, that sounds more like patriotism.

Patriotism according to Wikipedia

"Patriotism or national pride is the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism."

I'm a Liberal, a Democrat, and a Patriot and no, none of those things contradict each other. I'm an American Patriot, because I love America, period. America, is a country that isn't dominated by one ethnic or religious group and perhaps within 30 years we'll no longer have a racial majority either. I love Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender. Patriots, love their country because of what their country represents: not the people that they associate with, the town, state, region, ethnic, racial, or religious group that they come from.

If there's a mainstream and positive faction within nationalism regardless of the country, it's that a mainstream Nationalist is a Patriot who loves their country, not just the people that associate with and community that they come from. And believes in putting their country's interests above every other country's interests at all times. And believes that their country has no interest and right to be involved in another country's affairs, even if that country is doing horrible things to their own people or another country.

The problem even with my own definition of what it means to be let's say a good Nationalist, is those aren't the Nationalists that Americans tend to hear about and hear from, except for maybe as it relates to foreign policy and national security, where you do see Libertarians who have nationalist leanings at least as it relates to foreign policy and national security.

The Nationalists that Americans tend to hear from are the people who believe that they're the real Americans, the real Patriots and that the people who disagree with them and don't share religious and cultural values, or even look like them are the Un-Americans: invaders and traitors to this great country that the so-called real Americans and the real Patriots supposedly love. And if you don't believe me, just look at the modern Republican Party and their leader that's dominated by an Anglo-Saxon, Christian-Nationalist, rural and Southern faction. 

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Tom Woods: 'My Goal as a Libertarian: To Oppress People'

Source:Being Libertarian- Don't have to convince me
"This person works at a D.C. think tank where a dislike of people like us, and me in particular, is literally company policy: nobody is allowed to cite me, go on my cruise, or even retweet me.

That's an actual policy at an actual institution.

("Institution" being the key word.)"

The rest of Tom Woods here

Source:Tom Woods: Todd Seavey- 'By Popular Demand: Libertarianism 101' - Their definition of libertarianism?
Todd Seavey, author of Libertarianism for Beginners, joins me for a discussion that beginners and advanced students alike will enjoy. We go from the foundations, to real-world applications, to problems for libertarianism, to left and right and libertarians. Much to learn from and enjoy. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

From Wikipedia

"Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.[2][3][4] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.[5]

Libertarianism can be a term for a form of left-wing politics. Such left-libertarian ideologies seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[6][7][8][9] Left libertarian ideologies include—but are not limited to—anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism and egoism, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism. Modern right-libertarian ideologies, such as minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, co-opted the term in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources."

There are times when I really love social media and feel that I almost have to be on it for the sake of my life and personal welfare, ( which might sound slightly overdramatic and a slight exaggeration ) especially Twitter, because you can see things and get into debates, and learn about things and people that you couldn't otherwise, unless you spent all of your time reading and researching online and at other places.

I couldn't find the source of the tweet that this anti-libertarian person ( probably some crazy, whacked out leftist ) that attacked Tom Woods for being a Libertarian. The source of the tweet is not even on Tom Woods blog but if there are people who hate Libertarians and libertarianism for what they believe and stand for, it would be the Far-Left in America, ( Democratic Socialists and Communists ) because in believing in almost complete individualism and individual choice, Socialists are collectivists ( obviously ) and want the state to be in control as much as possible with the responsibility and power to look after everyone else's welfare, especially Communists.

Libertarianism, like every other political philosophy is hard to officially define because you have competing factions in each of it to the points that you'll have competing factions that don't sound like each other at all and the only thing that they have in common is that they call themselves Libertarians. I know this all to well as a Liberal, ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) because you have a lot of people who call themselves Liberals, even though they tend not to support liberal values like liberal democracy and if anything are very illiberal as far as their own politics. Like really strict limits on free speech, personal freedom, property rights, anti-pluralist, etc.

Progressives, have the same issue where you have people who call themselves Progressives, even though a lot of what they believe is actually very regressive. Like believing the perfect is the enemy of the good and being very uncompromising, when progressivism is actually a very pragmatic philosophy.

But libertarianism at least as I define it and how I've viewed the last 20 years or so ever since I became an adult, is the belief in property rights and that property rights extends to one's personal body. That people should have the complete freedom and personal responsibility for their own lives and bodies, just as long as you're not hurting innocent people with what they're doing. You're not physically attacking innocent people, attacking someone's personal property, stealing from them, kidnapping them, forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

So under my definition of libertarianism at least, Libertarians actually do believe in government and even a national government, but that it should be limited, decentralized as much as possible, and there to protect the rights and individual freedom of the people: not there to run people's lives for them by controlling most of their money, or telling them what they can and can't do with their own personal lives, not telling people what they can think and say, etc.

But to get back to my first point about how different political philosophies get mistaken for other philosophies that sound nothing like the political philosophy at hand, liberalism being mistaken for socialism, progressivism being mistaken for socialism, conservatism, being mistaken for Christian-Nationalism and nationalism in general: you have people who call themselves Libertarians, who are actually Right-Anarchists. ( Right-wing Anarchists ) People who are actually Anarcho-Libertarians, who again sound like Anarchists and don't want government at any level to basically do anything, but who call themselves Libertarians.

So at least under my definition, you can see why Socialists ( to be frank ) would hate libertarianism and Libertarians go out-of-their-way to attack Libertarians whether it's Tom Woods or anyone else, because Libertarians believe in the opposite of what Socialists believe. Libertarians, believe in individualism. Socialists, believe the world is a complicated place and that people tend to be stupid ( especially Americans ) and that you need Uncle Sammy ( or whatever the country is ) big enough to manage the lives for all of his nieces and nephews for them. Because libertarianism at least in it's classic form, is the direct opposite and arch-rival of socialism. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

NFL Network: 'Lombardi's Redskins'- The Story of The 1969 Washington Redskins

Source:NFL Network- I believe Redskins QB Sonny Jurgensen and head coach Vince Lombardi 
"Lombardi's Redskins | The Story of 1969 "The Forgotten Year"

Source:NFL Network: 'Lombardi's Redskins- The Story of The 1969 Forgotten Year'

When I think of the Redskins from the late 60s and 1970s, the expression what if comes to mind real fast.

What if, Vince Lombardi hadn't died and lived to coach the Redskins for even 5-10 years; how many Super Bowls would they have won, let alone winning a Super Bowl and beating the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl 7 with Lombardi as their head coach/general manager and Sonny Jurgensen as their QB. Even if Lombardi dies the way he did, what if their new head coach and GM George Allen, doesn't name veteran journeyman and mediocre QB Billy Kilmer as his starting QB and he instead let Sonny finish his career as the starting QB of the Redskins and Allen kept the Redskins offense in place, instead of playing a lot more conservatively on offense, how many Super Bowls would have the Redskins won with Lombardi or Allen as their head coach and GM.

But to get back to Lombardi and his impact on the Redskins, you have to know what kind of franchise they were in Washington the previous 13 seasons, before you get to 1969: pre-Lombardi, a good season for the Redskins even with Sonny Jurgensen as their QB, a good season for the Redskins was 6-8 or 7-7. The Redskins of the 1960s, were very similar to the San Diego Chargers of the mid and late 80s: they scored a lot of points mostly with their passing game, but gave up just as much if not more. One of the top offenses in the NFL, to go along with one of the worst defenses. From 1956-68. 13 straight non-winning seasons for the Redskins where again a good season 6-8 or 7-7. Not 10-4 and just missing the playoffs.

Also to understand Vince Lombardi's impact on the Redskins, you have to know what he brought to the Green Bay Packers in the 1960s as well: Lombardi, believed that the way you win in the NFL, was to control the line of scrimmage, very similar to Bill Parcells and another great Redskins head coach Joe Gibbs. You win in the NFL by running the ball, stopping the run, protecting your QB and attacking the other QB. And then go to play action in the passing the game, to move the ball down the field, but to also keep the defense off balance so they can't concentrate so much on your running game.

The Redskins of the 1960s pre-Lombardi, passed the ball 30-35 times or more a game with Sonny Jurgenson and whatever running game they had came after long passes from the passing game. Lombardi, kept the explosive passing game with Sonny, WR's Charley Taylor, Jerry Smith, and Roy Jefferson, but added RB Larry Brown and improved the offensive line and now the Redskins had a good running game, with one of the best passing games in the NFL. So Lombardi, brought balance to an already explosive Redskins passing game.

The Redskins go from 5-6 in 1967 and 5-9 in 1968, to 7-5 in 1969. Now you might say that winning an extra 2 games from the previous season in 1969 is not a big deal, especially since the Redskins already had a good offense, but again Vince Lombardi's first season in Washington and the Redskins first winning season of any kind since 1955. Lombardi's first season in Green Bay, he was 7-5 and the Packers get to the NFL Championship in his second season in 1960 and win the Championship in 1962. Lombardi, brought discipline to Washington and taught a young Redskins team how to win and not settle for being OK, but that instead you need to be as good as you possibly can be, so you can be as successful as you can be. Something that they hadn't had since the Ray Flaherty era in the 1930s and 40s, which was Vince Lombardi's impact on the Redskins. 

Melina: Natasha Richardson- Lauren Bacall: Intimate Portrait

Source:Melina- Lauren Bacall: too cute to scare a mouse
Source:Melina: Natasha Richardson- Lauren Bacall: Intimate Portrait

If you're familiar with my social media activity, you know that I'm a big fan of classic movies and Classic Hollywood in general, especially actresses from that era. And you also know that I use the term Hollywood Goddess, to describe actresses that I love and respect. So maybe I should explain what I mean by Hollywood Goddess and who is a Hollywood Goddess, at least according to my definition of Hollywood Goddess.

To me a Hollywood Goddess, is of course a woman is not just beautiful, but obviously so and not just sexy, but obviously sexy physically and personally. Someone with a great intelligence, personality, as well as body. But a woman who is also a great actress. So of course Lauren Bacall would is not just a Hollywood Goddess, but one of the best ever, if not the best ever. Sophia Loren, seriously try finding a better looking woman who ever worked in Hollywood, who is also a great actress, who is also better looking than Sophia. Anita Ekberg, Angie Dickinson, Gena Rowlands, Rita Hayworth, Gene Tierney, Raquel Welch, and the list goes on.

There are actresses that fly by in Hollywood like a plane through the sky at night or a moving ship in the water, that don't seem to make any impact and aren't memorable. There are actresses that make a big splash early in their careers, but never get back in the water and are out of Hollywood what seems like the next day and never heard of again, or die prematurely. Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield come to mind real fast as far as that second group of actresses. And then there are the Hollywood Goddesses who are just unforgettable and you see them once and soon develop a crush on them, because you can't get them out of your minds. To me those actresses are the Goddesses of Hollywood. The A-List of Hollywood actresses, the best of the best.

To me at least Lauren Bacall is not a Hollywood Goddess, but the Hollywood Goddess of all-time. Not saying she's the best looking woman to ever work in Hollywood, but just the best. When you're talking about the gorgeous, sexy actresses who've ever worked in Hollywood, she's not just the best actress when it comes to gorgeous, sexy woman in Hollywood, but at least arguably the best actress who has ever worked in Hollywood. Her timing, her delivery, her ability to bring great and quick wit to serious roles and situations as a woman who just didn't have a comedic wit, but a great comedic wit, ( just look at her appearances on Johnny Carson ) her memorable roles in the 1940s with her husband Humphrey Bogart in their film noir movies like Dark Passage, The Big Sleep, and others.

And then you're also talking about a woman who if anything got better looking as she got older: she goes from being tall and slim in the 1940s and the 1950s, to tall and sexy with the legs and butt of a pro-tennis player by the 1970s. Lauren Bacall, is not just a Hollywood Goddess, but the Goddess of Hollywood, at least from my perspective. 

Monday, June 24, 2019

The New Yorker: Opinion- Osita Nevanevu: 'Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Two Paths for the American Left'

Source:The New Yorker- The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party
"This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.

But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”

This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected."

Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu's piece at The New Yorker

Source:Now This News: 'How Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Plan to Raise Trillions in Tax Revenue'- Bernie vs. Liz 
"Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.' It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans."

When you're talking about Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren for President in the Democratic primaries, you're not talking about Barry Goldwater vs. Nelson Rockefeller from 1964 in the Republican primaries: Senator Goldwater, was a hard-core, true Conservative-Libertarian Republican and literally one of the founding father's the conservative-libertarian movement not just in the Republican Party, but in America. Governor Rockefeller, was a Right-Progressive Republican ( I know that sounds crazy ) back when right-wing Progressives were a major part of the Republican Party.

When you're talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you're talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on wha the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn't interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren't denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics. And Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.

But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they're both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.

This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn't not just fly, but it doesn't get off the ground: sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it's too hot and the plane overheats. ( Something that I've experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there's too much snow on the ground.

For one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system: when Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist: that she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question; she was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not. 

The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn't, is how they self-describe their politics. Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )

Bernie and Liz,  both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas. 

Friday, June 21, 2019

George Carlin: 'Political Language'

Source:George Carlin- Talking about our crooked politicians
"When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops?"

Source:George Carlin: 'Political Language'

George Carlin, here talking about how politicians cover up  not just their mistakes, but immoral and sometimes even illegal behavior.

Anyone who isn't learning impaired, intelligent, sane, sober, and immoral ( which might be an unique, elitist club today ) knows that the first, major, an deadly mistake that President Richard Nixon made during the Watergate investigation over than trying to cover up the scandal, was to not come out with what he knew about it from day one.

Remember, President Nixon didn't personally order the Watergate break-in: that was done the head of his campaign John Mitchell. President Nixon, could've stayed out of it and let the FBI do their jobs and the people who would've gone down for it, would've been members of his campaign and people that were hired by those people the bunglers ( or burglars ) to do the Watergate break-in. Not President Nixon, or his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, senior advisor John Ehrlichman. Just Attorney General ( how ironic ) and top members ( or soldiers ) of his reelection campaign.

The lesson that crooked politicians ( our taxpayer funded crooks and liars ) get from Watergate, at least when they're guilty of whatever they're being accused of is to deny and coverup. Just flat out lie ( or bullshit ) about what they're actually guilty of. Thinking that they're constituents ( or blind followers ) are too dumb, don't care, or simply won't believe the allegations that have been made against their dear leader.

The problem with that argument is that it's not their blind followers that are going to hold them accountable, but instead it's the law enforcement officers and prosecutors that are investigating them and will hold them accountable. And law enforcement officers and prosecutors, tend to be the bright and educated and are smart enough not to take the word of a politician's when they're under investigation, because when their own eyes, ears, brains, and the best available and objected evidence suggests that the politician under investigation might actually be guilty of something that is really wrong and even illegal.

Being smart enough to not automatically take the word of a crooked politician over the word of your own ears, eyes, and the facts and evidence that's right in front of you, unfortunately makes you very unique in America. Which is why crooked politicians in America and around the world tend to get elected and reelected over and over. 

The New Criterion: William F. Buckley- 'Who's He: A Review of Snobbery The American Version'

Source:AZ Quotes- "TOP 25 SNOBBERY QUOTES (of 72)"
"Joseph Epstein’s new book about snobbery1 ends up being a book about Joseph Epstein, which is perfectly okay—provided one is Joseph Epstein. Another’s book about snobbery, displaying the author’s biography, his likes and dislikes, suspicions, affections, affectations, crotchets, would not guarantee against a reader’s strayed attention. There isn’t the slightest risk of this happening upon reading Epstein’s book, because he is perhaps the wittiest writer (working in his genre) alive, the funniest since Randall Jarrell."

Read more at The New Criterion

Source:The School of Life: 'How To Cope With Snobbery'- Sounds like sound advice 
"The existence of snobbery explains why we work so hard and are so worried about our reputations. We are all terrified of humiliation and disrespect.  If you like our films, take a look at our shop (we ship worldwide):"

The thing about snobbery or elitism, is that is not about race, ethnicity, gender, or religion: it's multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religion, both men and women are involved in it. Snobbery, is about class and social status. ( Even though you could argue that the English created it, both in Britain and in America )

And when I was growing up in the 1980s and early 90s, the snobbery from that time was about highly educated people ( people with college degrees from elite schools ) looking down on people who didn't have college degrees, or didn't have a college degree from an elite Northeastern or West Coast school. White-collar people looking down on blue-collar people who physically work very hard for a living. People who work in their own offices and make 6 or seven figures, looking down on people who work in construction, work on cars, drive trucks for a living, etc. People in big, prosperous cities and metros, with white-collar jobs, who look down on people from small and midsize towns and areas, with blue-collar backgrounds.

But it wasn't just about work status as it was about culture as well: people who drink wine and have servants at their home who prepare all of their meals for them and prepare, fancy and expensive meals for them, looking down at people who have a beer, eat chicken wings, shoot pool, or go bowling after work, prepare their own meals and do their own grocery shopping, as opposed to hanging out at country clubs and playing golf after work.  People who listen to classical music, feeling superior to people who listen to rock music, jazz, R&B, or whatever the non-high class music is supposed to be.

We still have economic snobbery and even social snobbery today, but it's different thanks to the internet, new technology, the explosion of celebrity culture, and social media where the so-called in-crowd, looks down at other people because they don't have whatever the latest phone or current gadget is, compared with someone who believes they can live extremely well in life ( as crazy as this might sound ) even if they don't have whatever the current smartphone is, or are up to date on the latest celebrity scandals or hit reality TV show.

Personally as a Liberal, I believe in live and let live, to each his own, do unto others as you would do to yourself. And if I personally got to write The Ten Commandments, maybe my name was picked out of some hat, or personally sat down and wrote my own personal Ten Commandments, those three commandments would be at the top of my list. So of course I'm not a fan on snobbery, simply because I don't believe someone is a better person that someone else, simply because they make more money, have more education, have more current devices, more followers on whatever the hot social media network, or whatever the standard is.

I'm very pro-choice as an individual ( not just on abortion and sexuality ) and believe people should be able to make their own beds in life and then have to sleep in them. And in today's social media, celebrity culture, new technology culture, my attitude is very old school and probably not fashionable. But popularity has never been my standard when I make decisions for myself and take positions on issues.


Wednesday, June 19, 2019

The Week: Opinion- Ryan Cooper: 'The Case For Paying Congress A Lot More': Because Government Doesn't Waste Enough Money?

Source:The Week- Big Money, meets Big Government
"A common populist attitude in American politics is the idea that public service should not pay well. By this view, being a politician shouldn't be about grubby paycheck comparisons, but instead high-minded public virtue. State legislators in Texas make just $7,500 per year, for instance, while those in New Mexico have no salary whatsoever. Last week, this mindset helped kill a bipartisan agreement to give Congress a pay raise for the first time in 10 years."

Read the rest fo Ryan Cooper' piece at The Week

Source:FOX Business: Varney & Company- U.S. Senator James Lankford: 'U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez Wants Pay Raises For Congress'- Is she for real?
"Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., on the Trump administration's trade negotiation strategy with China and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supporting pay raises for Congress.

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London."

Ryan Cooper, seems to be arguing in The Week that if you want more government, then you should pay more for it. The last time I checked, our members of Congress ( House and Senate ) are supposed to be public servants; meaning they work for us, they serve their country, and give up quite a bit like having to work not just outside of their hometown, but home state in order to serve their constituents.

They're not entertainers, ( even though a lot of what they say is actually entertaining and ironically funny ) they're not athletes, ( even though they fight so much they really sound like they should be in a ring ) they're not businesspeople, ( even though a lot of them seem to be there to personally benefit themselves and love the perks that they give themselves at taxpayers expense ) meaning they're not there in Washington supposedly in Congress to make money, but are supposed to be there to serve the people that they're supposed to represent in their districts and states.

The average American makes around $55,000 a year: the average member of Congress, makes $174,000 a year: what they are they complaining about? We're not talking about pro-athletes here who complain about someone who plays the same position as they do for another club and is about as productive as they are, but who just signed a new contract that pays them a helluva lot more than the other guy who is just as good, if not better, with the other guy now demanding that he gets a new contract, even though he still has 4 more years on his current contract. ( I know reading that last point can make people dizzy ) Pro-athletes, are in it for the money for the most part and most people understand that.

If members of Congress want to make more money, that they should get the hell out of Congress. I'm sure a lot of their own constituents would gladly volunteer to help them pack up and move. Maybe Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, can open up her new bar with her $174,000 a year Congressional salary and get a small business loan if she needs it. Otherwise, they're already making 3 times the average American and if they're really interested in pay raises here, they should be working to get pay raises for their own constituents back home who on average make a lot less money than they do.

And if Congress still wants more money, they could be a lot more productive like actually doing their jobs like passing budgets and appropriations, an infrastructure bill, and then maybe their constituents will feel like personally giving them a new raise.  

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

The Late Show With Stephen Colbert: Jon Stewart- 'Won't Let Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Off Easy'



Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert- Comedian Jon Stewart: making a guess appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert 
Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert: Jon Stewart- 'Won't Let Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Off Easy'

"Mitch McConnell says Jon Stewart is 'bent out of shape' for asking Congress to extend the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Here to comment is Jon Stewart."

As I mentioned last week and somehow feel to mention this again: Congress only moves when it's in their political interests. When a member thinks he or she can get something for their district and state. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is the perfect example of that.

Former Conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn, was nickname Dr. No, because for one, he was a doctor ( which seems to make sense, when I think about it ) and he was a master at unilaterally blocking legislation on his own in the Senate. The Majority Leader or just a regular member would try to bring a bill up on the Senate floor and Senator Coburn would simply block the bill by objecting to it.

Anyone who is familiar with the Congressional rule book, probably knows too much about Congress and reads too much, especially when they could be spending all of that quality time staring at their phone, ( ha, ha ) but they also know that any individual Senator can individually block any piece of legislation all by themself and that's as far as I want to go down this road.

But Leader Mitch McConnell is not Dr. No. Hell, he's not even a doctor at all, but he's a master at least when it comes to Congressional rules especially in the Senate and knows how to block legislation all by himself simply when he wants to. He was a master obstructionist in Congress when he was the Senate Minority Leader from 2007-15, routinely all by himself or with help from his Republican Caucus in blocking legislation sent over to the Senate by House Democrats. And if anything is even better at it now as the Majority Leader and doesn't have to wait for legislation to be called up before he blocks it, because he can block it all by himself before it even gets called up as Senate Leader.

Again, Mitch McConnell is not Dr. No, because he's not even a doctor, but to paraphrase Stephen Colbert he's the Moby Dick of Congress: the White Whale of all whales and if you want something passed in Congress, you need his approval, as well as the approval of Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, ( another master obstructionist ) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This might not just sound rude or even cold, but perhaps inhuman, but when it comes to our politicians, especially our 535 members of Congress that make up our House of Representatives and Senate, unfortunately it fits: when it comes to lobbying and trying to get a bill passed in Congress like the 9/11 first responders bill and benefits for our military veterans, you shouldn't talk to them like they're human beings. Which was Jon Stewart's major mistake last week when he spoke to the House Judiciary Committee. Even though they're technically human beings.

But instead talk to them and treat them as they are which are politicians who are always looking for the easiest way to reelection, or get elected to the next political office on their career agenda. Show them why it's in their political interest to pass the bill that you want, as well as show that to their constituents and then they'll move to work with you. Otherwise you'll be like an American history professor trying to teach American history to a bunch of new-techie hipsters at a coffee house, who are too busy staring at their phone to want to learn anything about history. 

Eileen Prose: The Good Day Show- Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden: In 1979?

Source:Eileen Prose- Hollywood Goddess Jane Fonda: I believe on The Good Day Show in Boston in 1979
"She stars with Lily Tomlin, Sam Waterston and Martin Sheen in the Netflix original series Grace and Frankie, which premiered in 2015. Jane is an actress, writer, political activist, former fashion model and fitness guru."

Source:Eileen Prose: The Good Day Show- Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden 

I see two Jane Fonda's when  look at her life and her personal career and I see one Tom Hayden.

The first Jane Fonda, is not just a great actress, but perhaps the best of her generation, with maybe only Elizabeth Taylor being better. As well as this gorgeous and adorable woman who is a pleasure on the both the eyes and ears. 

The second Jane Fonda, is a radical Hollywood Leftist, who sees America as the real war criminal and evil empire ( at least when she was younger ) who is looking to bring down what she sees as an evil regime in America ( in other words: the U.S. Government ) and replace it with some type of socialist state. I know this sounds crazy, but if you just look at her days when she protested against the Vietnam War, she was perhaps even to the left of Senator George McGovern with her rhetoric and labeling American soldiers as war criminals and getting her photo taken with Communist Vietnamese soldiers, when American soldiers were fighting these same Communist soldiers in Vietnam. Who also frequently attacks establishment Democratic politicians, because they're too mainstream. 

As far as Tom Hayden: he was a Socialist activist in the 1960s and 70s before that word became popular even with young Americans today. Who was never an actor or entertainer ( at least not professionally ) who became a California politician, who was also one of the founding members of the 1960s and 70s New-Left in America. ( Of Socialists and Communists ) In one sense at least I have more respect for Tom Hayden, because he was more pure. He didn't take advantage of the American system except for personal freedoms like freedom of speech, to bash the American system. Unlike Jane Fonda, who became very successful and wealthy in the same American system that she believed needed to be changed and perhaps even overthrown.


Monday, June 17, 2019

The Onion: 'Sarah H. Sanders- Tells Colleagues She’s Taking Temporary Post As Google CEO Before Transitioning Into Full-Time Role As Sultan Of Brunei': No More Onion Stories From The White House?

Source:The Onion- Thank God, for only one Sarah Huckabee Sanders
"Informing those in her professional life of her career plans, outgoing White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders reportedly told colleagues Friday she would be serving for a time as CEO of Google before gradually taking on a permanent position as the sultan of Brunei. “It’s been the honor of my life to work in the White House, but I’m excited to lead a $750 billion company in Silicon Valley and begin my reign as one of the world’s last absolute monarchs,” said Huckabee Sanders, explaining she had reluctantly turned down offers to direct the next Star Wars film, design the 2024 Olympic stadium, and become the first person to set foot on Mars, in addition to a lucrative position as head of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic."

Sarah H. Sanders: “Saudi Arabia and Monaco were both pursuing me pretty hard with head of state jobs, and Uber’s been trying to recruit me for their top post for 19 years now, but those opportunities just didn’t have the work–life balance I was looking for. Believe me, it was a tough choice. I spent hours talking it over with my husbands George Clooney, Tom Brady, and Jason Aldean." 

Sarah H. Sanders: "While I’m excited to begin my next chapter, I’ll be taking some time off for myself first. So don’t be surprised if you see me this summer relief-pitching for the Dodgers or traversing the Congo Rainforest with my best friend, Cardi B!” Huckabee Sanders went on to state that she was currently busy reviewing designs for the awards display she will build in the Bruneian palace of Istana Nurul Iman to showcase her multiple Emmys, Pulitzers, and Nobel Peace Prizes." 

From The Onion 

Source:Jimmy Kimmel Live: 'President Trump's Collusion Confusion & Sarah Huckabee's Departure'- Welcome to Donald Trump at The White House: the first reality show ever at The White House, that could only come from Donald J. Trump.
"As Trump gears up for his 73rd birthday, he joined George Stephanopoulos for 30 hours and revealed that he doesn't seem to know what collusion is and unveiled his plans for a new Air Force One. He also tweeted about meeting the 'Prince of Whales,' and announced that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is leaving the White House. So as she gets ready to take her leave we stop to reflect on her two incredible years."

When I first heard about Sarah Sanders leaving The White House as Press Secretary, my first reaction was that The Onion will no longer be feeding The White House Press Office with news stories. Seriously, a lot of what she and her colleagues report and talk about from The White House, it's like reading The Onion and getting the same stories from them. Since this is a right-wing ( to be kind, Far-Right to be more accurate ) White House, maybe their stories and what they say sounds more like stories that come from The National Enquirer, since TNE is not just in bed with Donald Trump, but they're like his loyal mistress ( unlike Stormy Daniels ) who'll do anything for him. They sleep on The Donald to show how loyal they are to him.

The reason why Sarah Sanders hasn't had a press conference since March ( even though she's The White Press Secretary and this is a major part of her job ) is that she's only human: there's only so much garbage ( to be too generous ) that any human being even the world champion of compulsive liars ( Donald Trump, being the current world champion ) can manage, handle, and put up with each day. Whatever you think of her and I think she's one of the most dishonest people in American politics today, ( which makes her very dishonest ) she's only human and knows that she's President Trump's chief bullshitter and being that would have to take a toll on anyone, especially if you're thinking about having a career with serious, credible, intelligent, and respectful people in the future.

I guess I'll wish Sarah Sanders well, but only because that means we'll just have one less bullshitter at taxpayers expense at The White House. But don't get too excited, because she'll be replaced as fast as one of President Trump's political positions and we'll get a new chief bullshitter at The White House who'll be just as effective if not more at bullshitting the American people at taxpayers expense.

Friday, June 14, 2019

George Carlin: 'I Like Individualists'

Source:George Carlin- So does Ayn Rand
"From 'When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops."

Source:George Carlin: 'I Like Individualists'

Before I get into George Carlin and what he thought about individualists and individualism, I need to mention a certain conversation that I had on Facebook last weekend and last week about my previous post about George Carlin, which fits into this piece, because it gets into what another thing that George George had in common with Ayn Rand. No Kidding: they were complete opposites on economic policy with Ayn being an Objectivist and George being what you could call as Socialist with how he thought about corporations and American capitalism, what's known as identity politics today with how he thought about race in America and European-Americans. But they both believed in free speech, free thought, and personal freedom. They both believed in individualism, at least as it related to one's personal affairs.

Last Friday, I posted my piece about George Carlin in a Facebook group that's dedicated to George Carlin. Apparently most if not all of the members of that group actually understand George, but this one member who apparently read my piece about George Carlin and 'Question Everything', the only thing this guy has in common with George is that they both swear a lot. Which makes his about as unique as snow in Minnesota in January. I actually told him that the only thing he has in common with George is that they both swear a lot, which makes him as unique as sunburn in Florida, but you get the idea.

This guy attacked my piece and called me an asshole, for political correctness reasons and that I paraphrased Ayn Rand. Think about that for a second: a member of a George Carlin Facebook group, attacking posts in that group, because he views them as politically incorrect and that I paraphrased in my last piece. If you know anything about George Carlin, you know that he hated political correctness., loved free speech and free thought, reason, and individualism: so did Ayn Rand.

So unless this guy is simply not familiar with George Carlin, or perhaps had George Carlin mixed up with George Washington, perhaps George Harrison, or so other guy named George who is in love with political correctness to the point that he would screw it if he could, and hates Ayn Rand, because he hates free speech, free thought, free will, reason, and individualism, this guy simply doesn't understand George Carlin at all and perhaps joined the wrong group on Facebook by accident. Maybe he was drunk or high one night or couldn't sleep after drinking an entire keg of Red Bull and didn't know what to do with himself and up on his computer and stared joining Facebook groups randomly.

If you wanted to know what the joke was that this guy in the George Carlin group thought was politically incorrect and the paraphrase of Ayn Rand that he didn't like, I'll tell you anyway: I made a comment about politicians last week saying that politicians especially Congress are less productive than people on Welfare and Unemployment. Which is actually a very true statement in way too many cases and their lack of productivity comes at taxpayer expense. Actually, people on Welfare and Unemployment are required by law to look for work, or be in job training or both. Members of Congress, already have jobs that are subsidized by taxpayers and they don't bother to them in way too many cases.

But this guy hated that line about comparing politicians with people on Welfare and Unemployment, because apparently it's politically incorrect and said that George Carlin wouldn't like the joke either. Even if he's right about George not liking the joke, he would at the very least defend the writer's right to make the joke and not have to face legal or court action against it, simply because someone was offended by it, because again he hated PC and loved free speech and free thought.

As far as George Carlin and what he thought about individualists and individualism: again, this is something else that he had in common with Ayn Rand, along with free speech, free thought, and personal freedom, which is individualism. So again, what wrong with comparing the two, especially if you're familiar with both? Yes, anyone who can read knows that there is no I in team, "but there is an I in individualism, independence, and integrity." Again back to the smartphones: but if you bother to put down your smartphone for more than a minute, ( why don't you go crazy and put down your phone for an entire 5 minutes and see if you're up to that challenge ) you'll be able to think for yourself and at least be able to examine for yourself what you've been seeing on your phone or computer, or TV.

When I was growing up, the worst grade that you can get in school was an F. The first letter in faddist is also f. I'm not saying that faddists, are the worst people in the world, especially if they also aren't murderers, rapists, terrorists, crooks, or other felons, but they're the less free and have the less freedom, because they're only interested in what's cool at the given moment and being cool. And will do, talk, dress, a certain way just to sound cool, because they want to fit in with the cool crowd, with whatever the hip clique is at the time.

But the individualist is a rebel, because the individualist, not only has brain but bothers to use it. And because of that is able to make their own decisions and do what's right for themself at any given moment, because they're not worried about being cool and popular and simply want to be judged for who they are as a person. Not based on what's their favorite coffee drink, or how often they go to coffee houses, or do they go at all, what kind of cell phone they have, how up to date they are on celebrity culture and reality TV, ( if they're interested in those things at all ) how they dress, how they talk, etc. But instead be judged by who they are as a person. The individualist, might not be the coolest person in the room, but they get the most respect and are the most trusted, because people know they'll tell them the truth and at least be honest, as well as intelligent. Which I believe George Carlin would agree with.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

CNN: Jon Stewart- 'Chokes Up, Gives Angry Speech To Congress: Telling Congress To Do Their Jobs?

Source:This Is 50- Jon Stewart: speaking to an empty audience
"Former late night host and 9/11 first responders advocate Jon Stewart chokes up and slams Congress over health care for the 9/11 first responders during the hearing for reauthorizing the 9/11 victim compensation fund. "

Source:CNN: Jon Stewart- 'Chokes Up, Gives Angry Speech To Congress'

With all due respect to Jon Stewart: who I believe is one of the best political satirists of his generation and if he were a late night talk show host right, I believe he would be the best and the most popular, but telling Congress to do their jobs, is like telling a death row inmate to personally escort himself to the death house and put the needle in his arm, and the leave the doors open so he can escape from the prison.

Telling politicians to do what's not in the best political interest, is like telling your dog not to eat the potato chips that you left on the floor for him, why would they do that, especially when they represent people who continually reelect them, aren't aware of how unproductive at their expense that they are, or simply don't care even though they're paying for their un-productivity. Even when something is obviously the right thing to do like compensating 9/11 responders and financing the care and benefits to our military veterans things that are very popular and benefits that taxpayers owe these people, Congress sits on their fat, overpaid asses and does nothing, if it doesn't personally benefit them in their own district or state, or maybe a fringe in their party doesn't want them do to those things.

Jon Stewart, could've been speaking to a full house on Tuesday in that House committee hearing room and he still would've been speaking to an empty room as far as the people hearing him that would actually say: "you know, Jon Stewart is right: we should take care of the benefits of our first responders and do that right now." Congress right now, is made up of primarily careerists who are in public office to stay there or get promoted to the next office. Not to do their jobs, which is to represent their constituents like people who gave their lives and health to protect innocent Americans during the 9/11 attacks in 2001. And they can get away with it, because they keep getting reelected. 

Scott Bradley: 'To Run For Office Or Not'

Source:Freedom Rising Sun- That is the question for this piece
"Register for Q&A with Dr. Scott Bradley on Feb 7, 2019 7:00 PM MST at: 
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/regi...

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please register for Q&A with Dr. Scott Bradley on Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST at: 
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/regi...

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.


Facebook Live Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST on:  To Preserve the Nation

Scott’s Website:  FreedomsRisingSun.com" 


Source:KWIZE- "Political language — and with variations this is true of all ...KwizeGeorge Orwell about truth (“Politics and the English Language”, 1946) -"
When I think about politicians, I think about one of George Orwell's quote about them: "political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." Not all politicians are bad people who lack character and morality, but enough of them even if not most of them are and have replaced whatever character and morality that they started with when they were growing up with careerism. Once they into public office, they are there to stay there, or get promoted to the next job. That becomes their number one objective. And if doing a good job once they are in office helps them politically like effectively responding to a natural disaster, then they'll do that, just as long as it helps them politically and they need the support of the people that are getting hurt by that disaster. 

If being in public office just meant that once you are elected to whether it's Congress or some other office, or being promoted in Congress like moving from the House and getting elected to the Senate, if it just meant doing what you ran on and campaigned on, then I might like the job myself. Whether it was Congress, Governor of Maryland, General Assembly. 

I mean think about it: members of Congress ( House and Senate ) make roughly 150,000 dollars a year. If you're in leadership, you make more than that. Roughly three times more than the average American who can't afford to make bullshitting ( excuse the word ) their number one tool at work. If the average American bullshitted as much as the average politician, they wouldn't be able to hold a job, because no responsible employer would be able to trust them. And they might find themselves in jail for committing fraud. 

If you're in Congress, you make 150,000 dollars a year and for what: even if Congress doesn't do their jobs which they're supposed to do not just under the Constitution, but under their own rules like pass an annual Federal budget and appropriations bills, they can give themselves a raise. Congress, not only supervises itself, but is responsible for their own compensation, as far as deciding how much they should be paid and then leaving the taxpayers with the bill to compensate them, even if they're doing nothing other giving speeches, raising campaign funds, and taking political positions that are only in their best political interest. 

So I get back to George Orwell's quote: "political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder sound respectful." Politicians succeed on their ability to bullshit especially when they're either in trouble or facing tough political situations and positions. And trying to find a way to make people believe what they don't believe: like trying to make something that they're guilty of like flip flopping on a key issue make it seem like they're not flip flopping at all. ( That's about Joe Biden and his flip on the Hyde Amendment: in case anyone is wondering ) 

Or when they get caught in hypocrisy, trying to make people believe that they're not being hypocritical at all: like a right-wing politician claiming to be against big government, except when they're in favor of it, because they're against high taxes and government spending, but are in love with big government to the point that they would sleep with it when it comes to people's personal affairs and their own personal lives like when it comes to consensual sex amongst adults. 

Or a left-wing politician claiming to be pro-choice, because they support abortion rights and gay rights, but are anti-choice and pro-big government on just about everything else like as it relates to school choice, gambling, and everything else that the Far-Left in America would like to outlaw and put big government in charge, even telling people what they can eat and drink, and how we can talk to people. 

Politics in America in way too many cases regardless of how many cases and what the percentage is, is not for people who believe in strong character and morality and just want to make the world a better place for themselves and their country. American politics makes liars out of truth-tellers, and crooks out of moral people, because once good, average even if they're good people before they were elected, figure out that once that they're in office they like being able to make good money without actually having to be productive. 

Politicians like traveling around the country or even world at taxpayers expense and being able to attend campaign events at someone else's expense and giving speeches at someone else's expense. And decide if they want to keep their cushy taxpayers jobs ( like former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ) they need to fall inline and not do anything that could hurt them politically, even if it's the right thing to do, especially if they're looking to serve in higher office. 

If being a politician was simply about doing the job and attending the committee hearings, asking important and relevant questions, holding government accountable, and actually legislating which at this point at least in the U.S. Senate sounds like a foreign word or at least a word that U.S Senator's seem to need to re-familiarize themselves with, because it's been so long that they've actually done any actual legislating, then I might be actually be interested in serving in public office myself. But then I get about to George Orwell's quote about politicians which keeps me out.