C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Charles Krauthammer: April 22nd, 2005

Source:C-SPAN- Brian Lamb, interviewing Charles Krauthammer, in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat

"Charles Krauthammer was interviewed about his syndicated column in the Washington Post and the policies of President Bush in his second term. He also talked about his life and career, political philosophy, and observations about American politics and culture." 

From CSPAN

I could just start with the first couple minutes of this interview on Charles Krauthammer's comment on positive liberty versus negative liberty, because this is one issue where I agree with Krauthammer as a Liberal myself who believes in negative liberty over positive liberty and make that this whole piece. But I saw this interview last week when C-SPAN replayed it and there are a few other things I would like to talk about well like right-wing Progressives, which I believe Krauthammer was one and get into that as well.

As far as positive liberty versus negative liberty: positive liberties are things that government are supposed to provide for the people that they promise, when a political party that believes in positive liberty over negative liberty comes into power. Which is basically the freedom for people to not have to make decisions for themselves and not take control over their own lives. Not have to decide how to finance their kids education and where to send them to school. Choose which hospital to go to and send their kids. Not have to decide where to get their health insurance, because government would provide that for them. Not to have to plan their own retirement, because government will take care of that for them. Things that Socialists both democratic and communistic believe in.

What Charles Krauthammer described as negative liberty, is probably the same definition that former Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona ( Mr. Conservative ) would give for negative liberty, which is the right to be left alone from government short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. That goes for both economic as well as personal freedom. The right for people to make their own financial decisions like with health care, health insurance, education, retirement, starting their own business and making their own business decisions. Just as long as they personally pay for their own decisions and take personal responsibility for their own decisions.

But that negative liberty also covers personal decisions and personal freedom as well. Again, to go back to the right to be left alone short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. If romantic couples want to live together and even have kids together before they're married, that's their business. If adults want to smoke and posses marijuana, that's their business. If they want to gamble their own money, that's their business. If they want to image in pornographic activities and watch and read porn themselves, that's their business. And these are just a few examples, just as long as they're not forcing their personal adult activities onto minors or even adults that choose not to engage in them.

The main different between supporters of positive liberty which tend to be Socialists both democratic and otherwise, versus supporters of negative liberty which are Liberals, ( Classical Liberals, if you prefer ) and Conservative-Libertarians has to do with the right to be left alone short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. Socialists, tend not to believe in risk and investment, unless of course it's government that's doing the investing and tend to see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians, view risk and private investment, as the necessary tools and resources to have a truly free society.

Like I said, I could've made this whole piece about positive liberty versus negative liberty, but there was one other aspect here about Charles Krauthammer that I would like to get into as well which is his definition of Neoconservative people who I call right-wing Progressives, not former Liberals, but right-wing Progressives. The Nelson Rockefeller's, George Romney's, Newt Gingrich's, of the world, people like Representative Paul Ryan today before he became Speaker of the House. And I know right-wing Progressive sounds crazy sort of like how a Libertarian-Communist would or even Libertarian-Socialist would sound in today's crazy American politics, but I'll explain what I mean by that.

According to popular American political and political pop culture, a Progressive today is essentially a statist, both democratic and communistic. Someone who believes in the state ( meaning government ) over everything else and that it's the job of government to manage people's lives for them and that there is a big government solution to solve everyone's problems for them. And to get back to one of my points about positive liberty, that freedom to too risky and is dangerous and you need big government to limit individual freedom so everyone in society is taken care of. But that is not what Progressives are what progressivism is about.

The best and easiest definition of Progressive, is someone who believes in creating progress through government action, but through limited government action. That government can't do everything for people, but needs to be there to help people are struggling get onto their own feet. With things like temporary financial assistance and a broader safety net, but who wants to use that safety net to help people get on their own feet and become economically self-sufficient and free. With things like education, job training, job placement into good jobs, infrastructure and encouraging economic development into low-income community with large populations of low-income and low-educated people.

You have the right-wing Progressives that I've already mentioned and then you have left-wing Progressives who again aren't Socialists and who also puts real limits on what government should try to do for the people. Left-wing Progressives like former President Barack Obama, who believed government could be used to help people and empower people to be able to take control of their own lives. And people like former President's Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Center-Left Progressives, who believed in positive government to empower people who are struggling to take control over their own lives.

Charles Krauthammer was a Progressive, but on the Center-Right a Center-Right Progressive, people who would be called Neoconservatives today. People who are very hawkish when it comes to national security and law enforcement and don't tend to trust international organizations like the United Nations and international rule of law. Who even believe in what's called America First, but who aren't Nationalists, but people who believe that America should step in whenever they believe is necessary even by themselves, to protect innocent people from authoritarian regimes and to remove those regimes so democracy can takeover. The 2003 Iraq War, perfect example of that.

But, Neoconservatives are not anti-government even when it relates to the economy and tend to believe in commonsense regulations, a safety net for people who truly need it that encourages work and self-sufficiency. So Neoconservatives tend to support the American safety net like the New Deal and Great Society, but who again are very hawkish when it comes to national security and law enforcement and tend to not believe in civil liberties for suspected criminals and terrorists.

I'm just as sad as anyone else who didn't personally know Charles Krauthammer, but who respected him even though I tend to disagree with him especially on foreign affairs and national security, because he was really sharp and honest. Wasn't a political hack for anyone who just defended someone just because they were a Democrat or Republican, but instead spoke his mind and told people what he thinks and believes regardless of who and how to may have benefited or hurt someone.

Charles Krauthammer was brilliant at using humor to make his political arguments to point out the stupidity in American politics and government. He was a breath of fresh air in an American political culture that's dominated by polluted air like FNC and MSNBC, that is only in the business to back their side and try to destroy the other side. And he'll be missed indefinitely, especially by people who simply just want to know what's going and what people think about, instead of how the news can be used to hurt or benefit one side or the other.

Red Nay: Susann Uplegger- Biker Chick: From a 1997 Movie

Source:Red Nay- Susann Uplegger, as a biker chick.

Source:The Action Blog

"Susann Uplegger: bigi_leath_1997.mpg."

From Red Nay

I'm guessing this movie is from Europe and if this video was uploaded from someone who is also from Europe, it would be nice if they would've done the research or added the title of the movie to this video. Especially if they've seen the movie themselves, because if you're watching this movie from an American or even Canadian perspective, but outside of Europe, unless you're familiar with European movies let's say from Germany, France, or Italy, to use as examples and have watched a lot of their movies, especially if you're not familiar with the actresses and actors involved, you're not going to know what you're watching online here.

Source: Leather Dating- Leather Dating model 

It would like let's say a German or Frenchman, watching American movies online from their home in Germany or France and even if their English is pretty good and at least in Germany's case their English tends to be very good and they can watch American, British, or Canadian TV and movies without translation into their first language, you're not going to know what you're watching unless the title of the show and movie is provided to you.

As far as the video itself, a very good looking woman, an unknown actress at least from an American perspective. Playing a biker chick in some unknown movie or TV show. I'm guessing this is German they're speaking, but I only speak about 20 words of German and have a decent idea what the language sounds like, but they could be speaking Dutch as well. A very attractive head-to-toe in black leather on her biker. Black biker leather jacket, black leather jeans, black leather biker boots. A beautiful redhead, nice body playing a very attractive biker chick.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr: The Equal Rights Amendment- Phyllis Schlafly Debates Ann Scott (1973)

Source:Firing Line With William F Buckley- Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Episode S0089, Recorded on March 30, 1973. Guests: Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Scott, Judith Areen, Father Edmund G. Ryan, Brenda Eddy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution. " 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as WFB puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn."

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men, what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had." 

Source:Hoover Institution- William F. Buckley, Ann Scott, & Phyllis Schlafly.

From Hoover Institution

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists (who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men) what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. 

Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had.

My issues with radical feminism which is just a form of socialism and part of the broader socialist movement in America and outside of America, is that they believe that women are superior to men and therefor should be treated better than men. That it's not equal rights for women that they are seeking, since they already had those under the U.S. Constitution and under our civil rights  laws. But they want women to be treated better than men not just in the culture, but under law. 

Radial feminists want women to be the boss in general instead of women or men just becoming the boss based on their education, skills, and production, but just be treated better than men and having more power than men simply because they're women. Not because they earned that right simply because of their intelligence, qualifications, and productivity.

Neox Term: Marion Kracht- 'in Full Leather'

Source:Neox Term- German actress Marion Kracht, as a biker chick-

Source:The Action Blog 

"Marion kracht in full leather !!" 

From Neox Term

If you're familiar with both American women and European women ( European women, meaning women who live in Europe and were born there ) you know that leather is more popular in Europe especially in the big countries like Germany and France, than it is in America. As least when it comes to pants. American women like leather leggings and in some cases, leather trousers, and of course leather skirts.

Source: Btta Zhuahuasuan- Unknown actress, on European TV

But European women like leather jeans jeans as well. Skin-tight jeans are all over Europe and not just in denim, but leather as well. You see female newscasters doing their shows in skin-tight skinny jeans and not just denim but leather as well. You see female TV talk show hosts doing their shows both in denim as well as leather jeans. DW-TV has several female weather women, doing their weather casts in skinny jeans. Generally in denim, but sometimes leather.

Source: Leather Empire- Stephanie Lagarde, on European TV

Claudia Kleinert, who at least was a meteorologist for DW-TV, has done several of her weather casts in skinny jeans in boots. A lot of the movies and TV shows that you see in Germany and in Holland, you not only see a lot of biker women over there, biker women in leather, biker women in full leather, including leather jeans. Skin-tight jeans that are made from leather instead of denim. Marion Kracht, who is a German actress is an example of that.

And I'm sort of surprised not that leather jeans are popular with European women, but that they're not more popular with American women. At least not outside rock and biker culture with rocker chicks and biker chicks, because American women love showing off their bodies, at least when they have a beautiful tight body. The average American sexy woman, has a jeans fetish to the point they start looking to get out of their jeans ruts and look for other pants to wear.

And skin-tight skinny jeans, are about as sexy as any woman can wear in America and as revealing as well. You know how good of a body any woman has by how they look in skin-tight jeans. Tight skirts as well. And yet American women seem to not like leather jeans, because they feel they're too tight or revealing, but not tighter or more revealing than leather jeans. American women tend to have jeans fetishes, but denim jeans fetishes, but not leather jeans fetishes.