Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, October 31, 2014

Salon: Opinion: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher's Berkley Speech is a Mistake: Freedom of Speech Protects Everyone, Not Just People You Agree With

Salon: Opinion: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling His Berkley Speech is a Big Mistake

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I'm going to give you a prefect example of what right-wingers are talking about when they say what conservative writer Jonah Goldberg titled in his book back in I believe 2008, what he called Liberal Fascism. Even though the title Liberal Fascism is a bogus title. I mean you can't be both a Liberal and a fascist, you know it is one or the other. Just like you can't be both a Socialist and a corporatist. You can't be anti-corporate, which is what Socialists are and be a pro-corporate, which is what corporatists are.

Berkley University, which is what I call California University, has or a group of their left-wing ill-liberal students have decided that they not only do not agree with comedian, left-wing comedian, by the way Bill Maher's views on Islam, but that they do not want him speaking at their university. So the school has canceled the Maher speech there. Now here's a couple of reasons why that is a big mistake. One is practical because Berkley is a public university and part of the California State Government. So Maher's free speech rights to me at least as a non-lawyer are being violated.

But the other issue gets to a philosophical one. Banning someone or canceling on someone because you not only disagree with your views, but you are offended by them. "Don't allow that guy to speak because we disagree with him and he would be saying things that we don't want our people to hear". Fascism 101 and why right-wingers call some on the Left 'liberal fascists'. Even though again there's nothing liberal about fascism, because the main value of liberalism is free speech and the right for one to speak freely regardless of what others may think about what they have to say.

I mean you are so offended or believe what someone is saying is no wrong and just utter garbage (or something else), let the person speak and then show people how wrong they are. That is what liberal democracy and free speech are about. The right to be heard and to be able to make your case. Knowing that you are not the only person in that country with that right. And that may include people you make disagree with. Which is something that people who are on the far-left in America, people who I call leftist fascists who are addicted political correctness, do not understand. 



Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Salon: Opinion: Britney Cooper: "We Must Abandon Bill Cosby: A Broken Trust With Women, Black America": Why the Cosby Show Is a Great Role Model For America

Salon: Opinion: Britney Cooper: We Must Abandon Bill Cosby: A Broken Trust With Women

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

In 1984 when the Cosby Show came on the air on NBC, I was eight years old in September, 1984. Actually I have more to say about this, but in the mid 1980s African-American families were stereotyped as poor, low-class, un-educated, single-parent with the mother trying to raise multiple kids on her own in some run down ghetto inner-city area. Dad completely out of the picture, perhaps in prison, or mom unaware of who the father of her kids are. The Cosby Show certainly not by itself, but they changed the way Americans looks at African-Americans and African-American families.

That alone makes the Cosby Show a success. Because even thirty-years ago not all African-American families were in that poor situation. Sure a lot of them and more than the national average as still is the case today. But the Cosby Show did what few other shows and perhaps only the Jefferson's did in the 1970s. Which was to show successful African-Americans and their kids. And that they have made it in America and that the entire community is not poor, un-educated, low-class, not knowing who their father was or dad leaving them when they were young.

The Cosby Show was sort of a stereotypical American dream. Dad is a successful doctor, mom is a successful lawyer. They live in a beautiful upper class neighborhood and house in New York City. They have great intelligent beautiful kids who are all doing well and are all successful. They were living the upper middle class dream and showing Americans another side of African-American life that probably far too many Americans perhaps of all races were not aware of.

And as funny as this show was and I don't know if there has ever been a funnier and better comedian on TV with their own sitcom than Bill Cosby, but as funny and as popular that show was, it had a very serious message. That African-Americans can make it in America and that Americans of all races can live, work, socialize with each other and not be bogged down by the fact that someone in the group or multiple people in the group has a different complexion or from a different race.

The Cosby Show was about a successful New York African-American family, but the show wasn't about race. It was about the lives of these people in this family and the show hardly focused on race at all and rarely if ever cracked racial or ethnic jokes on the show. Because that is not what the show was about, but it was about another side of the African-American story that hadn't been told up to that point. That not all African-Americans are poor and un-educated with criminal records etc. But that they are also successful and educated and doing very well in America. 



Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Salon: Opinion: Jeffrey Taylor: Reza Aslam's Atheism Problem: "Fundamentalists Aren't the Issue, Apologists For Religions Are"

Salon: Opinion: Jeffrey Taylor: Reza Aslam's Atheism Problem: Fundamentalists Atheists Aren't the Problem, Apologists For Religions Are

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Jeffrey Taylor makes a good and I would argue real Atheist argument against religion. Even though he writes for Salon, (ha ha) he didn't use his article to bash Christianity. But to say that all religions have serious issues more or less and that is a big reason why he doesn't believe in religion. Which has been my whole point and is my whole point about religion and a big reason why I'm Agnostic. That religions are too restrictive for my more liberal outlook on life as someone who wants to and lives openly. And religions tend to be followed by people who don't understand their religion and do horrible things as a result.

There are good people of all faiths and I doubt anyone serious disagrees with that. And yes there are radicals probably in all religions that give that religion a bad name. But the problem is there are enough radicals to not only give Christianity and Islam a bad name, but to do a lot of damage to society and other societies that hurt a lot of people. Including people who follow the same religion and follow that religion incorrectly and do horrible things in the name of their religion. Even though their religion does not sanction their horrible acts.

I'm not saying that religion is bad and that all religions are bad and dangerous. That is where I would probably separate from Sam Harris and I've backed him several times on this blog the last few weeks. It is people who don't understand the religion that they follow, including religious leaders that don't follow the religion they follow. And lead that inspire people to do horrible things that is the problem. And something that is going to have to be addressed if the Middle East is ever to become a stable place where people can live in peace and live good lives. 

Monday, October 27, 2014

Sam Harris: Blog: Interview With Cenk Uygur From The Young Turks

Sam Harris: Blog: Young Turks Interview

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What I respect about Sam Harris's atheism is that he's the real thing. He doesn't say Christianity is horrible and should be put down, especially when radical fundamentalists are in the news doing horrible things. But then defends the right of fundamentalists Muslims when they do and say horrible things about people they do not like and defend their right to free speech and Freedom of Religion. Even when these leftist political correctness radicals probably are against Freedom of Religion.

My example of that would be Salon and their coverage of now famous Real Time With Bill Maher show  that Sam Harris and Ben Affleck were on. When Ben Affleck was defending political correctness when it comes to criticism of Muslims, but have no problem attacking Christians when they do and say things that probably most Americans not just disagree with, but even find disgusting. Salon is garbage by the way and that is putting it nicely. They are not much more than a propaganda operation for the far-left in America.

If you a real Liberal and even a real Atheist, you are not going to defend the right of free speech for people you agree with as a Liberal, while trying to shut up the opposition. As we see with leftist fascists on campus that try to block right-wingers from speaking at their schools. And if you are a real Atheist, you are not going to bash one religion and say that it is evil or whatever, while you are saying another religion is perfectly normal and legitimate. One of the points of being an Atheist is that you don't believe in religion and are against religion period. Which I believe is two of the points that Sam Harris is making. 

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Miss Green Again: Video: The Carol Burnet Show: Dinner and a Movie, Captain Cliche Strikes Again


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Alan Alda playing Captain Cliche on The Carol Burnett Show. The man who probably watches too much TV and too many movies and unable to think for himself. Doesn't sound that unfamiliar to the faddists who follow every trend just to be cool or awesome. We especially see that with technology today where so many Americans feel the need and must have the latest technology, computer, smart phones etc. Because they won't want to be the only one that doesn't have the latest phone or whatever. And be the only one with Iphone 5 instead of 6 or whatever.

I called Alan Alda Captain Cliche in this scene, but Cookie Cutter would've worked to. Someone not able to think for them self especially when they are talking to people they like and want to like them. So what they do to compensate is use material that they've heard from other sources. There's cookie cutter humor that I'm not a fan of that we see today with so many sitcoms and movies using other people's material and lines because it worked and sound cool there, so they use that with their project as well.

But if you know the real Alan Alda as opposed to this dope he played in this sketch, which he did very well, not that it takes a lot of effort to play a dope, but you know that Alda is anything, but cookie cutter or cliche when it came to his own humor. And that he is very spontaneous and off the cuff, flip and real quick with his wit. As we saw with MASH where he had a big role in the material that was used and as we've seen throughout his carer and with his personal appearances. 

Saturday, October 25, 2014

What About Larry: Video: Bravo's Inside the Actors Studio: Kevin Spacey's Impressions: Smart Answers to Stupid Questions


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on Blogger

People have asked me what's my style of humor, my sense of humor and how I come up with lines and so-forth. I'm not saying I'm a professional comedian or anything (at least I haven't gotten paid for being funny, yet) . But I have been able to make people laugh hysterically, intentionally and unintentionally in the past. And I've told them simply my sense of humor is off the cuff, I say what's on my mind when I'm thinking it. Rather than "that sounds funny and use it two weeks later". To me humor has to be fast and relevant. Example of a bad joke. Cracking jokes about Priests at a football game, is probably not a smart play.

First of all you're likely to offend a lot of people there and not seem funny, but insulting. Which to me are two different things, but you're going to get strange looks (or end up wearing someone else's lunch) like making a Catholic joke at a football game when some half-naked moron runs on to the field during the game and people will look at you like "what does a drunk Priest in Church have to do with the guy who ran on the field". You're humor needs to be relevant and needs to make sense. And what I do is, I see myself as an analyst of life, we all are and I make judgements and comment on things that I see whatever is that interests me. If you watch the sitcom MASH or Seinfeld, that's exactly what they do. Here's the situation, what you think about it and they would look for the funny side of it.

Alan Alda who played Hawkeye Pierce, my favorite sitcom character of all time. If not in TV in general would be performing surgery and cracking jokes as he's doing it while saving the patients life. One to relax the people he was working with in that stressful environment, but also to relax himself. "This is the situation and this is what's funny about it was their approach to comedy". To give you a personal example, I use to work in customer service, have about twelve years experience of that. And we were surrounded by people, customers mostly for whatever reason, they were nervous or whatever. But would go brain dead when they would approach you and ask the dumbest questions possible.

No joke when I worked at a movie theater, we had to wear these loud maroon colored red polo shirts. With the name of the movie theater on them, with these corny name tags on them. I'm Joe or Sally or whatever, with your name on them obviously, (what was the first clue). We just got a lot of customers that were either, drunk, high or both or perhaps just had brain surgery, but their doctor actually removed their brain by accident.

Smart answers to dumb questions

Customers would constantly walk up to me and ask, do I work here. And seriously this is no joke, I would always reply with a smart ass answer and I never got in trouble for it. And I would say no, I stole this shirt or I'm a member of the theater fan club.

"Do you sell popcorn?" No we are the only movie theater in America that doesn't sell popcorn. We sell Chinese food instead, but sorry no chopsticks you have to eat with your hands.

Again true story, one day I'm in a ticket booth, selling tickets, naturally. (If you would guessed I was selling sporting equipment, you would be wrong). And someone asked, me where do you buy tickets, I told them three blocks down the street at the gas station, but if you want your oil changed or need gas, you have to buy it here.

Another person asked what size is the small popcorn. I said small we aren't trying to fool you with false advertising even though that would be very tempting because of the quality of our customers. "Well what does it look like"? It looks small. Again no joke someone asked how much are free refills, I told them five bucks, but we only take travelers checks. Again this is the situation in front of me and that's what I was thinking right at that moment.

That's the style of humor that you get from Kevin Spacey the actor/director/writer, but I would throw in comedian as well. The guy could've been a full-time professional comedian if he wanted to. Watch the movies Swimming with The Sharks and Hurley Burley, The Big Kahuna and you'll see what I mean. I would add Chris Walken and Tom Hanks to that list because their humor is so spontaneous, off the top of their heads, they don't need scripts or writers. They do that for themselves which is what all great comedians do and is a style of humor I've patterned mine behind.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Lain Lucey: Same Time Next Year 1978 With Alan Alda & Ellen Burstyn- The Ultimate Weekend Getaway From Reality


Source: Lain Lucey-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Same Time Next Year might be the best romantic comedy of all-time. And if it isn’t, it might be the smartest romantic comedy of all-time and definitely in the top one percent of both categories. Because I don’t believe it was trying to be funny, but the movie was just so natural. With the two main characters George and Dorris played by Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn, who were just so real with both having noticeable flaws that came out often especially George. And the two both looking for something different in their relationships.

The only part of the movie I do not get is the opening scene. Why would two happily married people be out in the country by themselves having dinner by themselves? What were they doing there all alone when they are both happily married with kids. But that is how the movie and this love affair that is only one weekend a year, but for the next twenty-six years starts. And this would actually be a movie that should’ve had a second chapter. To see how this couple made out because both of their spouses die in the movie.

What I also love about this movie is when George and Helen weren’t making love in the movie, the rest of the movie was conversational between this couple. And you get to learn so much about them. About how vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence George was. And how unsure he was and easy to blame himself about things and how bad of a liar he was. To Helen wanting a stronger man in his life stronger than the man here husband was. These are two very good caring people, but two real people looking for something different in their lives.
Lain Lucey: Same Time Next Year 1978 With Alan Alda & Ellen Burstyn



Sunday, October 19, 2014

Chris Early: Video: CBS's Dallas: The Best of J.R. Ewing: The Funniest Prick in the Southwest


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on Blogger, November, 2012

The J.R. Ewing character played by Larry Hagman is one of my favorite characters of all time on TV. Because he was so real, didn't try to be the nicest guy in the World and wasn't the meanest. But he was one of the best, let's say dick's of all-time, not because he was the meanest, but because of how clever and funny he was. And the words he chose to at other peoples expense. J.R. Ewing was a dick, but he played by Larry Hagman was so good at it, that you almost had to respect him for it. "That asshole can really put you down". 

J.R. is one of those people that you always knew where you were with him. And if you weren't on the top of your game, he would be more than willing to let you know about it. Kinda of like that judge mental parent or perhaps uncle, where nothing is ever good enough for them. So what you always do is everything you can to try to please that person, to keep them from criticizing you. Which helps you in a way, because it gives you incentive to improve and be at your best. The constructive critic. 

I call J.R. Ewing who was played by Larry Hagman of course and I'm not sure anyone could've played J.R. better, because their sense of humors matched up so well, the funniest prick in the Southwest. Because he knew how to put someone down, or put them back in their place, especially when they were out of line. But he was accurate and direct. Someone who would tell you the way it is and make you laugh at the same time.  



Gary McGillvray: Video: NBC's Golden Girls: The Best of Sarcastic Dorothy


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on Blogger, January, 2013 

I was never a huge fan NBC's Golden Girls, a sitcom about senior single women sharing a house together. But I did love the Dorothy character played by Bea Arthur because she reminded of my maternal grandmother. Who I believe is where I got my flip off the cuff sense of humor, a wiseass who has very little tolerance for stupid questions. My grandmother was very similar and when my grandfather would say something lets say not real bright, or ask a dumb question, she would nail him for it every time even with company.

So I tried to be more careful how I talked to her unless, I wanted a real good laugh because I new I could nailed for saying something dumb as well. Sarcasm when done right is the perfect tool to combat stupidity. And people who for whatever reason are having a brain camp at your expense and so what you get to do if you're up for to the task is show them how dumb they are being and how bad their lack of thinking is at that point.

I've been lucky to a certain extent. Because I've had jobs in the service industries where I have a lot of experience around people who for whatever reasons aren't thinking very well. And end up asking questions they should already know the answers to. Or are simply unaware that they know the answer to whatever question they are asking. So when I get a dumb question, I nail the person for it not to make them feel like an idiot. Just to let them know that they just asked a dumb question. And they should've put a little more thought into it before asking me that question again. 

And when I'm on, I can even get funny response out of the person who I just called out for not being very bright. 

For example lets say to make up a character, I tell Joe I'm flying to St. Louis from Washington. I've never actually landed in St. Louis, flown over it sure, but for the purpose of this example I've flown to St. Louis. And he says "so you are taking a plane?" And I say no Joe I've borrowed the wings of a bald eagle and going to fly myself. And Joe says something like "try not to run into any birds. I know how limited your flying experience is". Or something like that. 

Sarcasm when done right is a tool to combat stupidity. I prefer to use the term flip or off the cuff. Because sarcasm can be very mean, when you have someone whose overly cynical and whose always looking for the weakness in anything just to put someone down. Sarcasm at its best is a tool to let someone know. "You know what, thats' a real dumb question. You should know better and perhaps do and just aren't thinking very well right now". By showing that person how dumb they sound at that point.

My definitions of dumb questions are any question asked by someone who already knows the answer to the question they are asking, but not aware of it or someone who should know the answer to the question they are asking. But lacks basic fundamental knowledge and whose just being lazy. And my other definition of a dumb question is a question that has the answer in the question, but who's simply not aware of that. And I'll explain what I mean. My example of a dumb question where the person who asking the question should know better, but asks the question anyway.

Lets say you are driving to someone's friends house for a visit or dinner or whatever. And they call you while you are driving to get an idea when you'll be over and you say I'm on the road now. And I should be there in that about twenty minutes. And your friend says "you are driving now?" Of course you are driving now you just said you are on the road you told the person last night you are coming over. They know you drive and so-forth.

My other example of a dumb question, the question with the answer in it. I use to work at a movie theater and worked concessions a lot and someone would ask me. 

"What size is small"? Well its small obviously or we wouldn't call it small. And every time I was asked that question I would say well small and I never got in trouble for it. To go to my first example of a dumb question, when I worked at that theater I was always asked do I work there. What else would I be doing there wearing that cheesy maroon shirt and name tag if I didn't work there.

Again Sarcasm when used effectively is a tool to combat stupidity, "you sure you don't know the answer to that question". To let the person know they should've put a little more thought into that question. And when sarcasm is misused, it's the ultimate mental weapon to put people down and to try to make them feel worthless or stupid. So if you do have a quick off the cuff sense of humor, have a conscience as well because you'll make a lot of people laugh without sounding like an asshole. 



Thursday, October 16, 2014

Salon: Opinion: Michael Burstein: "We Need a New Constitution": What American Liberal Democracy Really Needs

Salon: Opinion: Michael Burstein: We Need a New Constitution

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Michael Burstein's amendments, or even new United States Constitution was not as radical or social democratic as I was expecting. I perhaps was expecting to see proposals that would move America away from it's federalist tradition and system and try to move to more of a unitarian form of government. Where the states aren't nearly as powerful with as much responsibility, because that responsibility would now be in the hands of the Federal Government. Michael Lind who also writes at Salon has proposed doing things like that.

But to get the Burstein proposals and what I would do differently.

Congressional Term Limits

I'm against them for both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and I'll tell you why. I don't like the idea of government telling me or any other American who we can vote for. And this is what I would do differently. Guarantee the Right to Vote, so there's one amendment I would like to see to the U.S. Constitution. And end gerrymandering for both Democrats and Republicans. How you do that? The states would still write their U.S. House districts under the condition that each district would have to represent the state. So you a state 55-45 one way or the other or even closer than that, say like Texas or California.

California is more like 70-30 for Democrats. The state couldn't put all of the Democrats or Republicans in one district or a few districts. They would have to spread them out. And if the state is 55-45 for one party or the other or closer than that, than that is how the districts would look. So the majority would get a majority of the districts, but it would have to be represented of their overall state majority. And the state would no longer look like that only Republicans or Democrats would live there. Because the other party would have several districts that favor their party as well.

Term Limits for the U.S. Supreme Court

I'm against that because now we are not talking about limiting voters choice in who they can vote for. But limiting the President's choice in who they could appoint or reappoint, which is my next point. The U.S. Supreme Court is simply under represents a country of 310 million people with fifty states. Not proposing to turn the U.S. Supreme Court into a democratic institution. Just saying that nine members is simply too small, especially in a country this huge and this divided politically. I would go to fifty justices not including the Chief Justice and their deputy, as well as a Minority Leader to try to organize the minority on the court. One U.S. Justice for each state. and have each Justice serve six-year terms and then have to be reappointed to stay on the Court.

Public Financing of U.S. Elections

Another bad idea. Why? Because now you're taking more power away from American voters. And you may argue that the current system does that. True, but this would be another way of doing that by saying that the only roles that voters have is to vote and perhaps volunteer. But not be able to endorse the candidate or incumbent of their choice. The person that may represent them in the House or Senate or as President. And what would make that worst that now all us as taxpayers would be forced to subsidize candidates and incumbents that we simply do not like and perhaps are even doing a bad job. Public financing is another way of saying taxpayer financing of public elections.

But here's what I would do instead. Full-disclosure of all campaign contributions to call campaigns. Everyone and every group that raises money for political campaigns would have to report those contributions and contributors to the Federal Election Commission that would be publicly reported. So no more dark money or dark packs because all of these groups Left and Right will now be public and so would their contributors. And if they are controversial, candidates and incumbents would think twice about taking money from them if they believe those public contributions could hurt them politically. And we would probably see less negative and false advertising as a result.

Right to a Quality Education

Finally Michael Burstein and I agree on something! Now the only question is how we bring that about. The Federal Government of course in a country this size and diverse should not be running the education system. Or create one education system, because the fact is we have hundreds or more education systems in this country. Which simply comes from being this big, this diverse, this spread out and frankly this liberal with all of the decentralization of power in the country. At least at the governmental level.

But with all of the poverty and impoverished areas of the country and with education being a national priority because of how it affects the economy, there has to be a real federal role for education in America. Which is mostly about funding and research and to a certain extent seeing that basic needs are met. Are all students getting an education or regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or not and that includes special needs students. We obviously can't guarantee equal outcomes as much as Socialists may believe they can. But what we can guarantee is that every student has a quality opportunity to be successful in America regardless of where they go to school.

So what the Federal Government should do is give the underserved school districts and states the resources, financially mostly that it needs to see that all of their students have the tools that they need to do well.

Encourage financially people who are well-educated to teach in underserved areas.

Encourage things like public school choice so no student is forced to go to a low-performing school.

Lets pay teachers like lawyers and doctors and the Feds could help with the financing to pay those salaries.

Make college free for all qualified high school graduates who serve in public service for at least two years after graduating college. The Feds could finance that. And for qualified high school graduates who decide not to serve in public service after graduating college, make their college affordable with a college financing program that they, their parents, their employers and their parents employers would all pay into until the student is ready for college.

Michael Burstein proposed a lot of things I disagree with as far as what he would do. But did put some goals and ideas on the table that if were amended the way I did, or something close to that, I could go along with that would improve our liberal, not social democracy in America. 



Tuesday, October 14, 2014

TruthDig: Opinion: Sonali Kolhatkar: "The Rise of the New Liberal Islamaphobia": The Differences Between Muslims and Islamists


TruthDig: Opinion: Sonali Kolhatkar: The Rise of the New Islamaphobia

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

Sonali Kolhatkar column in TruthDig just illustrates my point about the political correctness movement on the far-left in America when it comes to Islam. In their little world its acceptable to bash the Christian-Right. But when you bash lets say the Islamists who ideologically in a  lot of ways do not look much different from the Christian-Right at least on culture issues, like women's place in society, you get put down as a racist. Why? Because Muslims tend not to be Anglo and Western-European ethnically and racially. Which is really what this is about. Protecting non-Caucasians against people they see as bigots.

Liberals aren't putting down Muslims as a people and perhaps even Islam. Even though Islam is probably way too restrictive for the average Liberal. We are putting down and critiquing Islamists, which is different. Islamists are terrorists and people who support terrorism in the name of Islam. The same way the Christian-Right when they bash gays and other people claim to be doing that in the name of Christianity and Christ.

ISIS/ISIl in Iraq and Syria are not Muslims in the sense that they do much of a job of living up to Islamic principles and values. They are terrorists and murderers and do those horrible deeds in the name is Islam. Which makes them Islamists and they want to control the Levantine area of the Middle East and murder as many Americans as they can to achieve that. And these are the people that Liberals and others on the Left are critiquing and putting down, because they deserve that. Even if the far-left calls us racists as we are doing so.

Monday, October 13, 2014

History Channel: Video: Jim Jones: Paradise Lost, the Mass Murders in Jonestown


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on Blogger, October, 2013

I've blogged about this before, but the People's Temple in the most positive sense and what its legacy is, is a collection of lost souls. Who for whatever reason or reasons weren't making it in mainstream America and were lost. And looking for a direction and a leader to lead them to lets say the promise land and end their pain and suffering. And to a certain extent and the good side of Jim Jones was that leader that could show people what meaningful life is. 

The people of Jonestown thought Jim Jones was the person to show them how to create a world where there wouldn't be anymore suffering and where all people would live a positive life. Without suffering and where people would live off of each other and live off of the land and literally take care of each other which is socialism at its best. But the problem with the People's Temple or later Jonestown, is that it was led by Jim Jones. 

Jim Jones had a dictatorial evil side to him that was about making people completely dependent on him for their survival. And wanted people to only do his will and serve him. Which is a common theme of dictators, because they are people who believe in absolute power. Which is all about what being a dictator is. Someone who wants to centralize all of the power with them self. And not delegating power to their deputies and people they are supposed to serve. Which is a big reason why Jonestown ended in such tragedy. 



Jas Bains: Catherine Bach-The Real and Only Daisy Duke From the Dukes of Hazzard

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

When I was growing up my favorite TV show was probably The Dukes of Hazzard. A CBS action comedy where everyone on the show met about every single stereotype both good and bad of what life and the people were like living in the country. It took place in a small county called Hazzard. Naturally with a police department that had two sometimes three cops including the sheriff who was named Roscoe. It had people with names like Daisy, Roscoe, Cletus, Enos, Cooter.

Guest stars with people with names like Billy Bob, Billy Joe, Marly Lu. It had every two name, name you can think of. It had dirt roads, country music, car races and car chases. Great country food, with the fried chicken, mashed potatoes, biscuits and gravy. Fast cars being chased by big police cars. A town where everyone knew each other and where the whole town knew when someone from out-of-town was in Hazzard.

It had Pickup Trucks, farms, crooked politicians and cops, ignorant people who didn’t seem to know what they were doing. It had moonshine whisky, a county next door called Chickasaw that only had one cop, the Sheriff on the Police Force. And it had a lot of beautiful sexy women on it. Including Catherine Bach who played Daisy Duke. Forget about Jessica Simpson who played Daisy Duke in the movie Dukes of Hazard. She’s more qualified to play Sally Smith head cheerleader at Valley High, then to play a country girl.

The hot, sexy baby-faced country girl was the perfect role for Catherine Bach on Dukes of Hazard. Because she was and actually still is gorgeous, baby-face adorable with a great body. Two of the best legs this country has ever seen, just like Tina Turner or Raquel Welch. She was very funny and even though she was (actually still is) baby-face adorable, could probably kick ass as well as he her cousins Bo and Luke Duke. Played by John Schneider. (Great last name by the way) And Tom Wopat the brains of the operation. And as adorable and sexy as Daisy was, you didn’t want to mess with here, because she could kick your ass and look hot doing it. In her famous tight denim jeans and shorts.

And her tight denim jeans and cowgirl boots, Catherine Bach now has her own Denim Line. She was no Sally from the Valley, but a tough but adorable sexy country girl. Who could be sweet as candy until you messed with her. Catherine Bach will always be Daisy Duke and since she played that role perfectly. Unfortunately will always be typed cast, because it’s so hard to think of anything else other than Daisy Duke when it comes to Catherine Bach. But she has done other things and has actually has been very active and successful pre and after. Dukes of Hazzard and is someone who’s career should be looked at. To give her the type of respect she actually deserves.

The original Dukes of Hazzard tv show, was and still is the Dukes of Hazzard, at least as far as I’m concern and as far as a lot other Dukes fans are concern as well. The recent movies and everything else are for a younger generation where everything that was around before they were even born or old enough to remember is considered, “like so yesterday and so over and needs to be changed for the new century. But there are reasons why sequels to great shows and movies tend not to be as good as the original. Because the original was done so well, that any new version of it looks like pretend or a copy.
Jas Bains: Daisy Duke Ultimate Tribute





Sunday, October 12, 2014

Great on Yak: Video: CBS's All in the Family: Archie Bunker on Democrats & the 1970s


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Oh the 1970s, a decade about sacrifice and millions of Americans learning about their government and their politicians and that they didn’t like a lot of them. But of course as George Carlin always said, “no one put a gun to your head and forced you to vote for. A or B or reelect A or B”. That we get the politicians and the government that we vote for. So who do voters who vote for the wrong people have to blame.

The 1970s starts off radically enough with the Vietnam War and millions of Americans wanting to get the hell out of there. And can you blame them with all the people we lost. To Vietnam War demonstrations with a crime family running the White House. Because they didn’t trust their own country and their own people and a lot of them voted for Richard Nixon. To Watergate and the Nixon team breaking into Democratic headquarters. That didn’t have a January heat wave in Alaska’s chance of defeating President Nixon for president. To a president essentially being forced to resign as president or be fired by Congress.

We go from Tricky Dick Nixon as president. To stumbling bumbling Gerry Ford as president, our own president who was never elected president or vice president. It gave Americans a taste of what communist rule looks like and they spit that out by voting for a peanut brain, I mean peanut farmer in Jimmy Carter for president. Whose idea of leadership was to blame America for the country’s problems.

It is a good thing I was only alive for four years of the 1970s. Because if I had to go through that whole decade and old enough to remember all of it, I might have ended up being institutionalized for depression. Because the 1970s was a depressing decade. Sure the women’s designer denim jeans revolution of the late 1970s helped and was great for men to see, but most of the rest of the decade was depressing.
Why Not, Look at The Other Choices
Why Not, Look at The Other Choices




Saturday, October 11, 2014

The Young Turks: Video: Cenk Uygur: HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher: Ben Affleck vs. Bill Maher & Sam Harris on Islam


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to correct Ben Affleck. Any criticism against Islam or Muslims is not racist. Why, because Islam is not a race, but a religion. I pointed this out last night, but the far-left has decided that any criticism against Islam is racist, okay bigoted, because again Islam is not a race. You want to talk about ignorance on the far-right which this blog has and will continue to do, great, but don't leave out the far-left that has a bad habit of saying things that are simply not true.

Now why has the far-left decided that any criticism against Islam right or left is, well bigoted. Because Islam is not Christianity and Muslims tend to be something other than Caucasian and especially don't tend to be Anglo or of Western European decent. There are Caucasian-Muslims, but they tend to come from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, like in the Slavic countries. In the small fringe world of the far-left, maybe 10-15 percent of the population, its perfectly acceptable to criticize the Christian-Right, especially Caucasians. But if you attack a non-Christian, non-western religion, you are a bigot.

The far-left or fascist-left with their whole political correctness movement has decided that outlawing speech they find offensive, is simply not practical. The whole First Amendment gets in their way on that. So what they've decided that if they can't shut people up through government force, they'll try to shut people up through protest and lawsuit and screaming at people, to prevent people even on the Left like Sam Harris and Bill Maher, from making their case.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Sam Harris: Blog: Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself? Why Liberalism is All About Free Speech & Anti-Fascism



Sam Harris: Blog: Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I'll try to be nice here, but talking about this issue especially when fascism is involved even from the Left, makes that difficult. But when lets say people further left me, Ben Affleck, even though he's an actor, is a perfect example of that. When they stand up against religious extremism from the Right, like people who call themselves Christians, but spend so much time hating people who don't share their exact world view and way of life, which is anti-Christian, they make a great case for why religious extremism is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

But when religious extremism is practiced by people who come from lets say a non-Caucasian or non-Anglo or non-Western European background, who claim to be something other than Christian, like Middle Eastern Muslims, criticizing fanatics over here is somehow racist or discriminatory. That people who criticize Jihadist's are racists and bigots, even though the same people on the, well further Left lets say have no problem putting down Anglo-Christians when they attack gays and blow up abortion clinics and other forms of bigotry and terrorism.

If you believe in free speech and the First Amendment, you believe in free speech and the First Amendment. I know that sounds simplistic, but free speech is for everybody, at least everybody in America. And that not only means being able to express your own opinions and philosophy, but also reading or hearing view and ideas that you may find disgusting. And one thing the far-right and far-left have in common in America is that they don't believe in free speech for all. Just for the people who agree with them and the people they want protected.

The First Amendment is the First Amendment for a very important reason. It is the most important constitutional right that we as Americans have. Without it, the rest of our constitutional rights are almost worthless. Without the right to free speech and assembly, government could censor us at will if they chose to and decide who can associate with who and when. You take away the First Amendment with Freedom of Assembly and down goes the Fourth Amendment which protects our Right to Privacy. What good is the Right to Privacy without the Right to Assembly?

You can't be a Liberal and not believe in free speech and again who is free speech for, but for all of us. Not just people you agree with and view as needing your protection and the government's protection. You can be a Liberal or a fascist, but not both. And people on the further Left of Liberals (again just being nice) don't share that view. I think Ben Affleck and others on the further Left don't understand that. "Its okay and our duty to put down the Christian-Right and far-right in general. Because they are Anglo and Caucasian and come from Europe and run America. But if you put down people of other ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds, you are a bigot". In their tiny world.

The only thing I disagree with Sam Harris on, is that Liberals aren't the problem here. Liberals wrote the First Amendment and the Obama Administration will do whatever it can to eliminate ISIS in its last two years that it can, is an example of that. And they've already made progress there. The problem is leftist fascists that have a more socialist mindset that language that they view as offensive should not only be discouraged, but eliminated through law. Who are the problem on the Left who give real Liberals a bad name, because everyone on the Left tends to get lumped into one pool in American politics. 

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Thom Hartmann: Video: Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved Debating the Role of Government in America

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress, February, 2012

You ask the question’s what’s the role of government and you’ll get many different answers across the political spectrum in America. From Socialists who want government to do almost everything. Who believe the best society is the society that is as equal as possible. With no rich, middle or poor people. "And the best way to do that is through centralize power through the Federal Government". To Libertarians who want government to do almost nothing. Who don’t believe in limited government. 

Today's Libertarians are talking about  small government, not limited government. And basically believe that government’s job is to protect individual liberty and constitutional rights. To Liberals such as myself who believe in limited government. And just want government there to do the things that we can’t do for ourselves or do as well. To Conservatives who believe that government should be even more limited. And there are less things that the people shouldn’t be doing for themselves.
Thats where we are as a country when it comes to the role of government. And where its people on the Far-Left that want the Federal Government doing almost everything when it relates to the economy. To people on the Far-Right who believe that government isn’t doing enough to regulate people's personal lives. That we have too much individual liberty and we need more restrictions on who we live our own lives. 
To Libertarians who want Government out of the economy and out of our social lives and leave us alone. And these are the three loudest voices in this debate right now. Believers in limited government, Liberals such as myself are in a debate where its about whether we should double the size of the Federal Government ,or cut in half. And we are sort of in that middle of that debate.
I myself, I’m a Liberal Democrats and a believer in limited government. That it should only do what people can’t do for themselves or as well. Based on the authority it has in the U.S. Constitution. And for me that’s, law enforcement, national security, foreign policy and regulation of the economy. Protecting innocent people from the abusive harm of others. Not trying to protect people from themselves. That it’s about individual liberty and responsibility for me. That's what you get in a liberal democracy. Instead of government trying to protect us from ourselves, or do for us what we can do and do better for ourselves.