Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Friday, December 28, 2012

Learn Liberty: Antony Davies- Who Favors More Freedom: Liberals or Conservatives?

Source: Learn Liberty- Antony Davies-
Source: Learn Liberty: Antony Davies- Who Favors More Freedom: Liberals or Conservatives

One of the things I don't like about American politics is that it tries to take complicated issues and philosophies and tries to divide them into two factions. As if those factions are in sink on all of the issues and that the left and right is only made up to two political factions that agree on everything and all of the issues even though we do have a left and a right and so does every other country at least in the democratic world. But the left and right are basically just the two ends of the political spectrum. But both sides of the political spectrum have multiple and diverse factions on both sides. It's not just About liberal vs conservative, but the left and the right where the left is made up of more than just Liberals, but the left has Progressives, Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists. And the left has people who describe their politics as Socialist-Liberal or Socialist-Libertarian. People who Are socialist or social democratic on economic and perhaps foreign policy, but liberal-libertarian on social issues.

Whereas the right has Conservatives or Conservative-Libertarians, but they have people who are more classically libertarian and they have people who are neoconservative and religiously conservative. (Which is different from politically conservative) People who may be conservative on economic policy, but more statist on social issues and foreign policy. So left vs right is not just about liberal vs conservative. And Liberals and Conservatives at least Liberals and Conservatives in a classical sense generally don't view themselves as liberal vs conservative in the sense that they are enemies, but competitors who have competing political ideologies. But not out to destroy the other side and they also have more in common than I believe Americans tend to think. And they both have the same goals and see their philosophy as the best to achieve their goals which is individual freedom for all Americans. The ability to chart one's own course in life and be able to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing.

Which is one example why Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians hate the War on Drugs to use as an example. We both believe in economic freedom as well as social freedom, we both believe in limited government and a limited foreign policy and national security. That our military can't be everything for everybody. And that it should be limited to protecting our own national interests and helping others that deserve it when we can. But that we can't do everything where Liberals and Conservatives tend to differ is government's role in helping people who can't take care of themselves and need a hand up to be able to do that. Conservatives tend to be more hawkish on foreign policy and Liberals tend to be more internationalist, but we both believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. But Liberals and Conservatives are the two dominant political factions in America. Center-Left and Center-Right where most Americans tend to be on one side or the other, rather than being Far-Left or Far-Right.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Roger Dolittle: Revolution Volume I: The Late 60s

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Radicalism is certainly not new in American history. This country was certainly not founded by Moderates. But radical Liberals and Libertarians who wanted to be free from the United Kingdom and set up a Democratic Republic. Where the people would be free to live their own lives and not be subjects of the state or monarchy. So it was Liberal-Libertarians versus the British Monarchy in the late 1700’s that probably would’ve never given the British in the American colonies their freedom. And these new Americans were tired of living under the dictatorship of the British Monarchy and fought back and we had the American Revolution.

So back then radicals were part of the radical left. This crazy idea back then of individual freedom, was so foreign to really anywhere else in the world. And that’s how the American Republic was founded. So we’ve had radicals on the Left back in the 1700’s as well as the 1850s and 60s. Liberals pushing for freedom in the 19th Century they were pushing for freedom for all Americans. And fought to free the African slaves, which is one reason how the Civil War came about. Where Liberals wanted the African slaves free. Right-wingers wanted the Africans in the South to remain as slaves and property and the Federal Government trying to keep the union together.

Radical leftism went from a form of liberalism or libertarianism in the 1700 and 1800s to a form of socialism in the 1900s. And creating a safety net or even welfare state which started with the Progressive era in the early 1900s. And graduated to the New Deal in the 1930s and Great Society in the 1960s, to the anti-war movement of the 1960s. And then Liberals came back in the 1950s and 60s with the civil rights movement for racial minorities as well as homosexuals. And of course the environmental and women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s.

The establishment is sort of like the center the people with the power and anyone in this country whether they are Center-Left or Right. And the fringes of the wings are seen as radical because they are pushing for change and reform. And when the establishment is unwilling to change and even listen to the concerns and demands of the radicals, things can get very violent as we saw in the 1960s. But radicalism and violence in this country is certainly not new, but something that we’ve been able to tolerate.

We have a country the size of the United States both physically and in population, we are simply a huge country and power that has all the freedom that we have, both socially and economically. Including the constitutional right to self-defense and determination. So violence is always a possibility when people are unhappy and frustrated with the establishment to the point that they feel the establishment needs to be taken down.
Roger Dolittle: Revolution Volume 1: The Late 1960s

Friday, December 21, 2012

Foreign Affairs: Lauren C. Bell: Fixing the Filibuster: Congress Needs a Battle Place of Ideas not Obstructionism

Fixing the Filibuster: There is less consensus than many realize about the damage caused by increased use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Ambiguity over what constitutes a bona fide filibuster has allowed both Democrats and Republicans to demagogue the problem over time, usually in order to suit their short-term partisan interests. Don't hold your breath waiting for effective reform.

You would think in a Federal Government that has three branches and checks and balances including a Bi Cameral Congress. Where the upper chamber of Congress has an equal amount of members for each state meaning the US Senate. And in a government that has a two party system that Americans would have a choice and two competing visions. In who to vote for and who to support but thats not what we get, what we have instead is a House of Representatives. Where the majority party whether its the ruling or in the Republicans case the opposition party rules over the House. They set the agenda and the rules as far as how legislation gets debated and how it can be amended and what. Can be offered to amend the legislation and we have a Senate where the majority party meaning the Democrats. Wants to rule the Senate the way the House is ruled and the minority party because the Senate does have minority rights. Unlike the House when Democrats say take it or leave it, they respond by not only leaving the legislation but. Blocking it all together because you need a consensus to get anything done in the Senate which means the leaders. Of both parties have to work together to accomplish anything when the minority party is large like it is now.

Of course the Senate need to be reformed but Congress as a whole both the Senate and the House for it to ever. Function properly and for Congress to be able to confront the issues that faces the country and they aren't. In a very good position of doing that right now, both parties House and Senate are in the do it my way or. We are not going to do anything because both parties in Congress have the power to stop each other but they don't have the power. To pass anything out of Congress on their own which means both chambers in Congress need to be reformed. Where the majority parties both House and Senate control the agenda meaning these are the issues. That the House and Senate are going to deal with in this session and in this Congress but then have the responsibility. To draft legislation to deal with the issues that the majority leadership feels need to be dealt with in that session and Congress. And either markup and draft legislation on their own or work with the minority party but where the minority leadership. Would be able to not only offer but get votes on relevant amendments to all legislation but where they can offer. And get votes on their relevant alternative legislation as well.

The same thing should be going on in the Senate where the majority party there whoever is in charge sets. The agenda and gets to decide what issues are brought up but also has the responsibility to markup in committee. Legislation to deal with the issues that the majority leadership decides should come up and bring it to the floor. Once its passed out of committee but where the minority leadership has the ability to offer relevant amendments. And relevant substitutes to bills the majority leadership brings up when the majority and minority leaderships decide. Not to work together on issues and what the majority leadership would get in return for an open. Process to relevant amendments and substitutes is the minority party being able to obstruct less frequently. That only final votes on legislation could be blocked by the Leader or Minority Leader, which would replace the filibuster. With a motion to table that could only come at the end of the debate, when the majority or minority leadership. Decides the legislation is not worth passing.

The Senate needs to be reformed but so does the House, Congress as a whole needs to be reformed, we need. Less obstructionism in the Senate but the Senate and House also needs to be able to work its will and this doesn't. Mean forcing both parties to work together but having a system in the House and Senate where both parties. Would have input on issues and legislation that the majority party brings up meaning both parties would have. Skin in the game and incentive to offer ideas and new proposals when they see legislation they don't like.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

The New Republic: Opinion- Geoffrey Kabaservice: Reviews Robert O. Self's All In The Family

Source: The New Republic-
Source: The New Republic: Opinion- Geoffrey Kabaservice Reviews Robert O. Self's All In The Family

It is true that Liberals had their way in the 1960s and even to a certain extent we had our way in the 1970s on social issues. And individual freedom in America this idea that Americans shouldn't be forced to live some traditional American life that was common in America up until the 1960s when the boomers started going to and graduating from college.

Baby Boomers deciding that the life that their parents and grandparents were living wasn't the life for them and they rebelled. And also saw the plight and the discrimination that minorities and women were going through in America. And decided to do something about it which is how we got the civil rights laws of the 1960s. And homosexuals started to make themselves vocal in America along with women, African and Latin Americans that didn't have a big role in American life just in the previous decade.

I'm not going to get into the Great Society because that came from a different faction in the Democratic Party. People who are far more lets say progressive (social democratic really) and want a bigger role for the Federal Government in American life and would go even further than the New Deal and Great Society today.

But as Liberals were coming forward and making the case that individual freedom should not just be for the majority of Americans racially, but that individual freedom should be for the whole country. That there isn't just one type of American and one type of American life. That one type of lifestyle where we all get married, all have kids, the father works and the mother stays home doesn't work for everyone. And that there are other ways to live as Americans and still allowing all of us to be good people and represent America very well along with civil rights. That individualism was the cornerstone of liberalism in the 1960s. And our greatest triumph that empowered millions if not tens of millions of Americans in this country.

Not so much the Great Society that had some positive aspects to it. But a lot of the Great Society was this collectivist top-down centralized Federal Government has all of the answers approach that we tend to see from so-called Progressives to problem solving in America.

But what Liberalism brought in the 1960s that I believe Bill Clinton and other Democrats built off of in the 1990s, Bill Clinton and other Boomers of course being products of the 1960s, was this idea that individual freedom should work for all Americans. And we should all have access to it, rather than freedom just being available to a majority of Americans or for even most of the country. But it should be able to work for all of us and we should all be empowered to be able to live our own lives and be able to live our lives as we see fit short of hurting the innocent. And not be discriminated against based on our race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

And that all Americans no matter their economic background and their parents economic background should be empowered to get themselves a good education and be able to live in the middle class and not be forced to live off of public assistance their whole lives. But be empowered to chart their own course in life. Something the Great Society failed to accomplish.

The Religious-Right a lot of them coming from the 1950s generation and even older than that and we are still seeing that today as part of the Tea Party, believed that the so-called traditional America that they grew up with was disappearing. And decided it was time to stand up and fight back and take on issues like abortion, homosexuality, pornography and other things they see as immoral. And the Republican Party decided to bring these voters in. And thats how the Republican Party became a governing party again in the 1960s and 70s.
C-SPAN: Robert O.Self- All in The Family

The Hill: Elise Viebeck and Sam Baker- Advocates for Mental Health Have Momentum After Connecticut Massacre

The Hill: Elise Viebeck and Sam Baker- Advocates For Mental Health Health Have Momentum After Connecticut Massacre

This is something that should've been taken care of during the healthcare reform debate of 2009-10. That produced the 2009-10 Affordable Care Act. tThis should've been part of that law that was finally passed and signed in 2010 by President Obama and maybe we could've avoided some of the tragedies that have happened since. Because these shooters could've gotten the mental healthcare that they needed under their health insurance, but hopefully this will be taken care of in 2013.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The New Republic: Adam Winkler: Franklin Roosevelt: "The Father Of Gun Control": FDR's Legacy on The Democratic Party

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father Of Gun Control | The New Republic

Pre FDR the Democratic Party for the most part was a Conservative-Libertarian Party basically with a growing. Progressive/Social Democratic base that wanted to grow the Federal Government to have a bigger impact on Americans lives. And in society, the creation of the safety net but they wanted to go even further and create what's known in Europe. As a welfare state that would have a big role in literally taking care of people in the country, from anything from. Healthcare to childcare to pensions and so fourth, as well as Federal regulations in how Americans live their lives. Mostly when it came to the economy but even on things like gun control with a proposal of a national record. Of all guns in America which to me sounds like a national DMV on steroids or something but this is how Progressives. Tend to think they put a lot of faith in central power to take care of people and even at times protect us from. Ourselves and this movement was really the post Progressive era of the 1920s and even earlier in the 20th Century.

The Democratic Party at least as I see it is made up of three political factions at least as I see it. Classical Liberals not Libertarians but Liberals in the real sense and not modern sense people who tend to be called. Progressives today who are really Social Democrats that are common in Europe, who are left of center in Europe. But would be lets say further left over here to be nice and then there are centrists or Moderate-Liberals who. Who tend to have clear Liberal leanings on social issues but tend to be less ideological and more Bi Partisan. And able to work with other Democrats but also Republicans as well. The Liberals are people like me and John Kerry Senator from Massachusetts, the Progressives are the Dennis Kucinich's. And Bernie Sanders of the World, a Representative from Ohio and Senator from Vermont respectfully. The Centrists are the people like Joe Lieberman retiring Senator from Connecticut. The Democratic Party is the Liberal Party in America but we aren't the Social Democratic Party and there's a difference.

What FDR did was bring Democratic Socialism to the for front in American politics and give Progressive Democrats a voice in America. With the New Deal and even on issues like gun control where he wanted to create a national record for. All guns that are purchased in America but the Democratic Party didn't go from being more of a Conservative Party. To the Green Party or the Democratic Socialist Party, because the Wendell Willkie Liberal Democrats still existed in the party. And these Liberals are still in the party today so what FDR did was give Progressives a voice in the. Democratic Party but not to the point where they run the party but represent a solid faction in it.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The New Republic: Jonothan Cohn: A Fiscal Deal Is Emerging—But Is It Any Good?: What a Final Deficit Reduction Agreement Could Look Like

A Fiscal Deal Is Emerging—But Is It Any Good? | The New Republic

The fact that Speaker Boehner is putting a millionaires tax on the table is a good sign and something that the President. Should agree to right now and what Republicans would get in return is changes to Medicare and Social Security. Where the wealthy would pay more for their benefits and pay more into those programs before they start. Collecting from them and a gradual increase in the retirement age that would only effect people who can afford. To work longer meaning not people who work back breaking jobs and need Social Security and Medicare earlier. Then wealthy people to pay their bills and that the spending on Afghanistan and Iraq would go towards deficit reduction. Not back in the defense budget and both the House and Senate agree to take up comprehensive tax reform. In the next Congress and appoint people to work on that and that there would be a new type of economic growth package. That would be put together either now or in the next Congress that has things in it that contribute to new. Economic growth that both sides like, lower taxes on business's that invest that money in America and new infrastructure investment.

I would go much further and put in new reforms to Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance, as well as Welfare Insurance. And block grant these programs to the states and make them fully funded with their own dedicated revenue. So the states wouldn't have to pick up new costs to run them and have the Feds supervise or oversee what the states. Are doing with basic Federal regulations but no longer running these programs themselves and turn these programs. Into more empowerment programs where people on them would have the opportunity to work their way off of them. And into the middle class through education, job training and job placement, we could save hundreds of billions. Of dollars a year long term doing this, as well as closing bases oversees in developed nations that can afford to. Defend themselves but I don't here anyone proposing these ideas because of the political consequences of it. And the people they would have to take on in order to pass a package like this.

What I hope comes out of this is that the middle class which has been struggling for twelve years under two. Presidents will be spared from future pain meaning no tax hikes, that everyone making up to a million. Dollars a year would be spared from a tax hike and then taxes would go up after a million dollars and that. The payroll tax holiday would be extended for at least two years, that we have new infrastructure investment. And start rebuilding this country and putting more people back to work and that we do something that. Encourages business's to invest more in America which again would put more Americans back to work but we'll see what develops.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

FRSFreeState: MCAmericanPresident: President Clinton on Columbine and Gun Control in 1999: Time to Grieve and Heal Not Politic

Whenever there's some type of tragedy, especially one involving kids being murdered and gun down especially. In places where you would think they would be safe, gun control advocates use it as another opportunity. To call for gun control, they don't even bother to mention that young people who had their whole lives ahead. Of them were murdered for no reason other then to use that tragedy to call for more gun control. While the people involved in these tragedies and people who are less partisan are just trying to get through this experience. Taking life one day at a time if they can even do that, its not gun control that I have a problem with. As long as its common sense gun control and its Constitutional, its the timing of people who make their advocacy. Especially people if they probably had their way would repeal the second amendment all together and outlaw. Guns in the hands of private citizens all together and completely leaving the power of guns in the hands. Of government which is a scary thought for anyone who believes in Liberal Democracy, because that. Type of thing happens in authoritarian states.

Do we have too many gun tragedies in America, of course we do and do we need better smarter regulations. As well as do a better job of enforcing the laws on our books, yes we do but this tragedy just happened. On Friday, I'm writing this blog on Saturday literally twenty four hours after this tragedy occurred. Imagine if you lost a relative to gun violence, especially a kid son or daughter who was at school of all places. What you would be thinking about twenty four hours after your son or daughter was murdered, gun control. Probably wouldn't be the thing you would be thinking about, you might still be in shock at this point or. Doing whatever you can to help law enforcement investigate this tragedy and find out exactly what happened. And if there's anything you can do to help them, there will be a time to take up gun control and deal. With mental health in America to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future, just not days after. The last tragedy happened, lets give the victims, friends and families time to grieve right now.

There are times to push for policy positions and politics, tragedies are not the best time to do that. Thats the time for the victims and again their friends and families to cope with the tragedy as best as they can. And for everyone else to do what they can to help those people through that tragedy, we are going to have. A brand new Congress in less then a month and a President who just won reelection to work with that Congress. With a Democratic Senate that just added seats and with a Republican House that will have about ten. More Democrats, right now we still have the fiscal cliff to deal with, so before we start to address new issues. How about we finish what's left to do in the current Congress first.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Foreign Affairs: Prosperity Isn't Free: Robert Greenstein: What We Need Government To Do

Prosperity Isn't Free: To get out of its economic hole, the United States needs to cut spending and increase revenue. But policymakers must not let new taxes harm low-income working families, who have the fewest resources to contribute to reducing the deficit anyway.

There really isn't a better time to reexamine what the role of government should be in America and what exactly. Do we need it to do for us at our expense, then when we have a so called crisis where we have to look for new savings. In order to advert the fiscal cliff and look for ways to make the Federal Government more efficient and cost effective. Thats really what we should be doing what we need not want the Federal Government to do for us in this great huge country. And then we gotta figure out how to finance without borrowing what exactly we need the Federal Government to do for us. In an economically and fiscally responsible manner that puts us on a path to finally getting our fiscal house. In order, we obviously need a strong national defense, including a strong intelligence agency, strong. Homeland security, a strong foreign service, we need to be able to regulate the economy and have a strong. Currency and a strong justice system, these are the basics that we need the Federal Government to do for us. And then we need to figure out what else the Federal Government should be doing as well.

As former US Comptroller David Walker said the Federal Government has made more promises to its people. Then Americans are willing to pay for, so if thats the case then we need to find a way to finance what we are willing to pay for. And then go from there and this mainly relates in the social insurance areas but we have a national defense thats committed. To defending developed countries around the World that can afford to defend themselves, while we are borrowing. Money from them to pay them to help defend their own countries, so to me that would be a great place to look for savings. And then of course we are compassionate country that looks out for our poor and so fourth but for people who live. Off of public assistance whether they are working or not and who are physically and mentally able, we should. Be looking for savings here as well, not by kicking them off and on the streets but putting them to work and. And to education and job training so they can get themselves good jobs and no longer have to live off of public assistance. We could save hundreds of billions long term by doing this.

These are long term savings and would be part of a broader Federal Government reform plan but short term. We also need to look for savings in entitlements and in defense, as well as new revenue to avoid the fiscal cliff. Where we don't see a huge middle class tax hike and across the board spending cuts that would put us at a severe risk. Of going back into recession, like having the wealthy pay more for entitlements and having them pay more in taxes. Perhaps not starting at 250K$, perhaps 500K-1M$ would be more appropriate, as well as tax reform and savings in defense. Like the draw downs from Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

FRSFreeState: The New Republic: Richard D. Kahlenberg & Moshe Z. Marvit: "Right To Work Isn't A Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be

"Right To Work" Isn't A Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be | The New Republic

The saying elections have consequences applies here, as far as I'm concern Michigan is getting what they voted. For in 2010, a what I would call at least a Neoconservative Republican Governor in Rick Snyder, whose interested. In concentrating most of the power in the state in the state's capitol, with the ability to hire and fire local governments and so fourth. And with a Tea Party Republican Legislature who probably like to outlaw organize labor all together and centralize all power. With private business and government working in tandem together, this is the people that Michigan voted for in 2010. And now they are paying the price for it, as a Liberal I believe people have the right to make mistakes, that when. You vote for people who don't have your best interest at heart and are there to serve the big money that put them in. Office then the people who voted for those politicians should get to deal with the consequences of those decisions. Rather then government trying to protect people from themselves.

I agree that the term "Right to Work", is a bogus term there's no such term as "Right to Work" in America none. Of us are guaranteed a job in this country, we all get or don't get jobs based on our skills and qualifications. And in some cases the other people we are competing with for those same jobs, I do have some feeling for people. Who say that workers shouldn't be forced to pay union dues to unions they aren't members of and have some feeling. As well for Progressives who say that non union workers shouldn't enjoy the benefits of being a member of a union. For free I agree with that they shouldn't and I have an answer for that, union members should get the benefits. That they pay for and non union workers shouldn't get those same benefits and instead be left if they choose to. To be able to negotiate their own compensation and benefits with the employer they work for. But if they want the benefits that come from being a member of a union, they should have to join that union and pay for those dues.

I don't feel bad for the people in Michigan right now because they are getting the people they voted for and. Have put the trust in the Tea Party to run their State Government for them, good luck with that and had. They made better choices in who they voted for and voted for more Democrats instead and at least elected a. Democratic House or Senate, then a good compromise could've come out of this like the one I just propose. Which would a right to unionize or not unionize, joining a union and paying the dues or not  and negotiating. Your own pay and compensation which would be a good system and force all workers to think about what. Would be the best deal for them, solidarity or being a free agent and negotiating your own contracts.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

David Spada: Video: Slingin Sonny Jurgenson: The Redskins Gunslinger

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

To look at some of the shortcomings of former NFL QB Sonny Jurgenson, before I get into why he’s one of the top 10 QB’s of all time, maybe top five, those shortcomings are more about the teams that he played for. He played for very good teams in Philadelphia in the early 1960s and they started sliding by the mid 60s. The Eagles were annual losers by the late 60s and early 70s and Sonny gets traded to the Redskins in 1964. Who hadn’t had a winning season even since 1955, which would go on for another five seasons in Washington.

I’m not making excuses for Sonny, because he did play a long time without leading a team to a championship. Eighteen seasons from 1957-74 but for the most part, he played for a lot of mediocre teams. Where a good year was 7-7 or 7-5, 8-6. These are records that generally doesn’t get teams to the playoffs. So even as Sonny was playing for mediocre teams, he was a great QB on those teams, the best player on these teams. Doing every he can for teams that weren’t very good, had good players, great even, but not very good all around teams. Teams that struggled to win every week.

The way I describe Sonny Jurgenson, was a championship caliber QB who played on a lot of mediocre and even bad teams. I still believe that had Sonny played in Super Bowl 7 against the undefeated Miami Dolphins the Redskins would’ve given the Dolphins only loss that year. Because the Redskins did have a great team on both sides of the ball and I believe a better all around team than the Dolphins. That at least had more talent.

But of course Sonny was hurt with a busted ankle, so that didn’t happen, but the Redskins didn’t win championships in the 1960s and 70s because of Sonny Jurgenson. They weren’t very good in the mid and late 1960s because of the players they had around Sonny. No running game, a weak offensive line and a defense that probably gave up more points than Sonny and those great receivers put up every week. To where they were one of the highest scoring teams in the NFL every year, despite not having much of a running game.

I believe Dan Marino is the best QB of all time as far as just throwing the football. And had he had the running game and defense that Joe Montana had in San Francisco with the 49ers, Marino leads the Dolphins to four Super Bowl championships or more in the 1980s and 90s. We’ll never know that of course, but that’s how great Dan the man was. But no one handled the ball better than Sonny, as far as play action and knowing exactly when to throw the ball. And what to put on the ball, than Sonny.

I don’t believe a QB ever had better eye-hand coördination than Sonny. The ability to pick spots on the field as far when to throw the ball, how much to on the ball and where to throw the football. He was sort of like the Larry Bird of the NFL when it came to ball handling. And had great eye-hand coördination which is why he was such a great QB. Even though he never led a team to winning a championship.

FRSFreeState: Brookings Institution: Explaining the Education Choice and Competition Index

When people speak about school choice, they are generally talking about vouchers that would go to parents. Who live in an area where their kids are forced to go to a bad school and can't afford to send their kids to private schools. So they would get a voucher to be able to send their kid to a private school, I'm not in favor of private school vouchers. If states and localities want to do this, then thats their business, unless its Maryland or Montgomery County. Were to do this, where I live then that would become part of my business but school choice is really about. Being able to send your kids to the right school for them, no matter where you live instead of students. Being assigned to a public school based on where you live and there is something called. Public school choice that would allow parents to send their kids to the schools of their choice, that they. Believe is the right school for them, again no matter where they live which is something I'm in favor of.

I'm in favor of public school choice because it would bring needed competition to public education in America. And have public schools literally competing with each other for students every year, rather then automatically. Being assigned students no matter the of level of education that they provide for their students. So if schools do a good job, there are, going to be plenty of students that are going to want to go to that school. But if a school is failing, then that school would end up losing a lot of students, the students they currently have. As well as new students they normally would have in the future, if that school was still a monopoly. Choice and competition is one answer to how we reform public education in America because it would literally. Put schools against each other and make competitors out of them and force them to go a good job or end. Up losing students, money and perhaps even educators in the future, because it would end up being. A place where people don't want to go.

You can still be in favor of teachers unions and the right to organize, as a Liberal or Progressive. And still be favor of quality public education, as long as you are in the business of public education. Rather then teacher unions and be in favor of reforms that would bring about better schools in this country. And school choice is just one example of a reform that would improve our public schools.

Monday, December 10, 2012

FRSFreeState: The New Republic: Nate Cohn: Marijuana: A Winning GOP Issue?

Marijuana: A Winning GOP Issue? | The New Republic

The Republican Party is simply going to have to be able to appeal to more Americans outside of their base outside. Of the Bible Belt in order to remain a major political party in the future, its that simple since their base quite frankly is dying off. And being replaced by younger Liberal-Libertarian people and in a lot of cases by their own kids and this doesn't mean. That Republicans have to change their beliefs and policies, at least not all of them but what it does mean is that they. Have to start covering up some up their weakness's, they have right now and look like an intolerant bigoted party. Thats still stuck in the 1950s, while the rest of the country is in the 21st Century but the good news for the GOP. For them to fix these issues, the only thing they need to do is start highlighting their strengths as they are hiding. Their weakness's, the GOP is suppose to be a party that believes in individual freedom, fiscal conservatism, states rights and. Federalism and if you think about that, marijuana has all those components in it.

Republicans don't need to say, marijuana is great and that I suggest that all Americans try it and start using it. But what they can say is that this is an issue that should be dealt with by the states, so when a state decided to. Legalize marijuana, like Colorado and Washington State, Republicans would say thats their business and they are. Responsible for the consequences of their decisions and Uncle Sam is going to get out of the way, Conservative Republicans. Are not in the business to tell states what to do, as long as they are within the US Constitution, which would be classically. Conservative position to take, as well as a Federalist position to take, and young Liberals such as myself. As well as Libertarians would say look the Republican Party isn't so Big Government after all and they actually do believe. In things like individual freedom and personal responsibility and just don't say that they do for political reasons.

Marijuana plays well for Liberal Democrats and Libertarians, not so great for the Obama Administration and Republican Party. Who are currently on the wrong side of this issue with a lot of young Americans who tend to be Liberal-Libertarian. And here's an area where Republicans could break through with young people on.







Friday, December 7, 2012

Shout Factory: Video: Joshua Tree 1993 Trailer: Cops Are Bad, Bad Guys Save the Day

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

I gotta admit, Joshua Tree or Army of One and this movie for some reasons has two titles depending on how you see it, or what network it is on, but this movie is not a very good movie. Sure it has a decent car chase and there are some pretty good action scenes and perhaps I'm just not much of a Dolph Lundgren who is mostly famous for Rocky 4, (sorry, I'm horrible with Roman numerals) fan. But this movie is worth watching for other reasons. George Segal is his usual smartass funny self. And Cristian Alfonso plays a great sexy tough cop, looking for her big case.

Dolph Lundgren plays an escape convict who of course is innocent of why he was put in prison. But he's hardly innocent of much else and gets a break and manages to escape from prison when their bus breaks down. He is a career criminal and learns that his best friend and partner has been murdered by the crooked cop, sergeant or lieutenant that put him away played by George Segal. So while he's out of prison he's on the run and kidnaps a rookie or somewhat inexperienced police officer played by Cristian Alfonso who it out of uniform and steals her pickup with her in it.

They are on the run together because he doesn't want to go back to prison and has her as her hostage. He won't hurt her though if she doesn't give him any reason to. She later takes his side even after attempting to escape from him and gets ditched by him in the desert when he believes he doesn't need her anymore. But she now believes that he's innocent of why he was put in prison and that the crooked cop and his crew are the bad guys here and does what she can to help him as a cop.

Not a good movie except for a few parts, but Cristian Alfonso simply looked great in it. The hot sexy baby version of Cristian that I wish she brought out more on Days of Our Lives is the Cristian we see in this movie. And she looks great and adorable kicking ass in her classic Levis denim jeans and boots and plays a hot sexy cop that I can't imagine any man his right mind would want to ditch. And she and Dolph save the day sort of and the bad guy and gal put away some bad cops.

CBS: CSI Miami- Rest in Pieces, Raquel Welch Stars on CSI

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Raquel Welch would've been in her early 70s at this point and I guarantee you she was the best looking women on the show, at least that night. And CSI Miami has Eva Larue, who is also gorgeous and baby-face and well-built. And Emily Proctor, very attractive with a nice body, whose as cute as a little girl and at times at least sounds like one. But what makes Raquel a goddess for all-time, is that she doesn't seem to age, at least in public. She's always been hot and has always been baby-face adorable. Its just that the years she's lived have gone up every year.

I haven't actually seen this show, so I couldn't tell you how Raquel did on it. But I can tell you how she looked and the star power she still has on it, or CBS doesn't promote the show the way it did. An actress at this point when this episode came out in her early 70s, who still commands that much attention and who is still a goddess physically, looking better than beautiful women young enough to be her daughter and perhaps even her grand daughter, was probably unheard of twenty-years ago. But Raquel makes it seem so natural.

AP: Mark Hamrick: US Economy Adds 146K Jobs, Rate Falls to 7.7 Pct

Even despite Hurricane Sandy, the United States did add 146K jobs in November, a lot of that probably. Had to do with the start of the 2012 holiday season, people spending more as a result and employers looking. For seasonable help to meet the new consumer demand but its also another sign of what economists have been saying. That the American economy is about to takeoff and that we could be looking at robust economic growth in 2013. Which would be followed by robust job growth, with the unemployment rate falling, allowing us to finally move past. The Great Recession and back into strong economic times but thats if we can avoid the fiscal cliff. A bad combination of steep middle class tax hikes and deep budget cuts, that would affect public sector jobs. As well as private sector jobs, because of all of the private employers that do business with the. Federal Government, which would send us back into recession, as economists on both sides of the isle. Agree would happen, so the President and Congress we need to avoid that.

Thursday, December 6, 2012




This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press


Raquel Welch

Monday, December 3, 2012

FRSFreeState: NGC: Hard Time: America's Toughest Prisons: Super Max

Super Max prions or Super Max units inside of prisons might seem harsh or even Unconstitutional especially. For people who tend to be more dovish when it comes to crime and punishment and law enforcement, people who believe in a. More softer approach when it comes to these issues, people who are viewed as soft on crime by right wingers in the country. And some people who might be on the right, lets say very far to the right might see these prions as not harsh enough. But the fact is we need prisons like this in this country and some people may say these prisons don't exist in. Europe, well actually they do the United Kingdom being an example of that but also Europe doesn't have. The same crime issues and don't have the same type of inmates, people who simply aren't willing to obey authority. And have the attitude that they can have whatever they want whenever they want it, including sex, even if the person. They want to have sex with, doesn't want to have sex with them or not, so for prisoners who are simply not willing. To obey rules, they need to be isolated to the point that the only people they can hurt are themselves.

Its not a question of whether we need prisons like this in this country or not, its a question of how. These prisons should be run and how we should house people who need to live in this environment. At least until their behavior improves to the point that they can function well in general population. Should we warehouse these people and expect they'll improve their behavior on their own, in twenty three hour. Lockdown single cell environment or not even care if they improve their behavior or not, as long as they aren't. Hurting staff or other inmates, or should we be working with them, so they have incentive to not only. Improve their behavior so they don't have to live this type of environment and be able to function back. In general population, especially if they have a scheduled release date, I believe prisons shouldn't just be institutions. To house criminals but rehabilitation centers so once inmates are out, they don't need to come back.

We need Super Max prisons and units but these places shouldn't just be used to isolate these inmates. Not just from general population but the outside World but also they need to be rehabilitation centers. For these inmates so they can improve their behavior and be prepared to live in general population. Especially for the inmates who have release dates, because those inmates are going to be back on the street. And we don't want them hurting anyone else, so we need to be working with them while they are in isolation.