Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Saul Alinsky- 'Mobilizing The Poor (1967)'

Source:Firing Line- Community activist Saul Alinsky, appearing on Firing Line in 1967.

"The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor--mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag-out from start to finish. SA: "I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around." 

From the Hoover Institution 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Mobilizing the Poor" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are many who know little or nothing about the recent and distant past. They are often disinterested about such things and when pressed can find no value in its study.

 

Because our lives are linear we can't escape an essential truth: that an event follows a previous event and that, quite often, new things and ideas are built upon those that preceded them. What came before informs and influences the present and possibly the future, too. Knowledge of those things, people, and events of the past can't help but shine a sort of light on life and events of today, and what might be tomorrow. This is a simple calculus but all too often ignored. The great challenge is not finding historical things, events, and people to study, but interpreting their meaning—particularly as they might relate to the present.

 

After the election victory of Donald J. Trump, the country appears to have descended into upheaval. President Trump's election success was directly due to the functions of the checks and balances system (as represented in this case by the Electoral College) constructed by the founders; the losing candidate soon called for its abolition. Such an essentially revolutionary response to an election defeat is readily understood if the times themselves are seen as revolutionary, too." 

Source:New English Review- community activist Saul Alinsky, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

From New English Review

‘Mobilizing the Poor’, sounds like a great idea to me, but what to mobilize them for is the question. What do you want them to do. 

Now, me if I’m going to mobilize the poor, I would work with them to improve their own lives and empower them to empower their own lives. To make themselves self-sufficient, but also to get them involved in their own communities, if nothing else to make them better. So they are no longer stuck living in crumbling housing projects, living in dangerous neighborhoods and living in low-income communities where they can’t get good jobs. Because one, good jobs don’t exist in their communities. But also because they don’t have the skills to get good jobs and their kids won’t get the skills to get good jobs.

We still have low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. 

In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.

And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. 

This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.

If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. 

And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.

We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. 

Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.

America needs public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids too. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. 

The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Eric Hanushek- 'Schools Fiscal Crisis Unclear'

 

Source:Hoover Institution- Eric Hanushek, talking about American schools.

"Hoover senior fellows and members of the Koret Task Force on K--12 Education Eric Hanushek and Paul Peterson dissect the fiscal problems in US education. Short-run revenue problems are hard to solve just by wishful thinking, but the long-run problems caused by health care demands and unfunded retirement liabilities are real." 

From the Hoover Institution

When it comes to eduction funding especially for our public schools, we should judge our spending not just by the amount we spend on our public schools, but also by what we spend that money on and what we get in return. 

Our public schools are generally funded through state and local property taxes: this is tax revenue so we should be making sure we spend this money on things that work. And make sure we get the best bang for our bucks as possible. Instead of judging success by the amount of money we spend, instead of what we get. 

If we judged our public schools by the amount we spend on them and nothing else, Washington would have the best public school system in America of any big city certainly, but any city in general. Because they spend the most per-capita on public education then anyone else or one of the highest levels in the country. And they have instead one of the worst public education systems in America. When it comes to other big cities but public education systems in America as well. 

So what we should be doing is figure out what works in public education and each public school system should figure this out for themselves. With the FEDS and states helping out research and funding and figure out what doesn't work. Fund better the things that do work and either cut back, eliminate or reform what doesn't work. It's pretty much that simple. 

One thing doesn't work is paying teachers based on their time of service, instead of quality of service. Because that puts in a built in incentive for educators not to do a good job or the best job as possible. Because they know they'll get an automatic pay raise based on the time that they serve. So that would be one reform I'm in favor of, eliminate teacher tenure and pay the good teachers well and eliminate or retrain the low-performing teachers. 

Pay teachers based on the job that they do and reward the good ones and pay teachers more money up front, so people well educated who could make a lot of money doing other things. Would have more incentive to go into the education profession. This would be one reform that I would like to see and then I would fund it well. 

Funding our public schools should be about what works and what doesn't and go from there. Funding what does work at a good amount and cutting, eliminating or reforming what doesn't. And figure out how to fund what works in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible, so you also have money to fund other priorities. 

Euro News: 'Cuba Looks to The Future, While Marking its Past'

"

Source:Euro News- The beautiful Caribbean island of Cuba.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players."

From Wikipedia 

"As Cuba marked one of the biggest days in the history of its revolution, leaders were pledging to pursue reforms of the island's Soviet-style economy." 

From Euro News

Cuba is a beautiful somewhat small Caribbean island nation of around 11M people. And even though it's been a Communist State for over fifty years now with an authoritarian government and a Marxist-Communist economy, but with the passing of President Fidel Castro and his brother Raul now the President, a man who's recognized the need for progressive reform. (As opposed to regressive and illiberal) Something the Cuban People both still in Cuba but in America recognize as well. 

Cuba actually does some things well especially for a third World nation, like in education where their kids are educated well. But the problem is, you can have the best education in the world but if there aren't good jobs available for you which is largely the case in Cuba with its Marxist-Communist economy, with the State owning the means and production of society, you're not going to find enough good jobs, for enough people in an economy like that. The best education possible won't get you a good job if you have an economy thats dominated by inefficient state-owned industries. Cuba also has a very good state-run Health care system. 

I believe Cuba will move in the direction of China instead of Russia: start off with economic reform. (Meaning privatization and regulation) Hopefully their economy will move more like China than Russia and they are able to cut back on the amount of corruption in the economy. And most of the economic resources to going to a small percentage of people. And then moving to personal freedom later in the process. 

Communism I believe is not popular in Cuba any longer but I believe socialism is popular in Cuba and hopefully they'll move in the direction of social democracy instead of Marxist-Communism. Socialism is popular in Cuba and I could see a Socialist, hopefully a Democratic Socialist Party merging in Cuba in the future. 

If the Cuban Government ever moved in the direction of allowing opposition party's, perhaps the Communist Party will reform into the Social DemocraticParty (to stay in power, if nothing else) because socialism is popular in Cuba, 

I believe the direction that Cuba should head into the future, is to look more like Europe thats filled with social democracies. Instead of America thats more of a liberal democracy. And hopefully they'll allow for personal freedom as well. Reforming the Constitution or writing a new one, Bill of Rights, those sorts of things.

Ray Koch: President Richard Nixon- 'Birth of The HMO'

Source:Ray Koch- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) talking to his Domestic Policy Director JohnEhrlichman, about health care reform, in 1971.

"In 1971, Edgar Kaiser, the son of the founder of Kaiser Permanente, one of the first big HMOs, went to see John Ehrlichman, a top aide to President Nixon, to lobby the Nixon White House to pass legislation that would expand the market for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Ehrlichman reported this conversation to Nixon on February 17, 1971. The discussion, which was taped, went like this: Ehrlichman: I had Edgar Kaiser come in...talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. The next day, Nixon publicly announced he would be pushing legislation that would provide Americans "the finest health care in the world." 

From Ray Koch

Whether you're a fan of HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) or not, there's one person as well as the Democratic Congress of 1971-72 or 92nd Congress, that you can thank: the people who brought employer based health insurance to America, President Richard M. Nixon. 

With HMO's, anyone with a good job, whether they work in the private or public sector, has health insurance partially paid for by your employer. And of course you pay the other part which is taken out of your paycheck. 

Apparently before we had HMO's we had a fairly efficient health care system as far as our costs. But not enough people were covered with health insurance. Which makes health care and health insurance more expensive for everyone else.

The main reasons why Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965, to provide government-run health insurance for senior citizens and low-income people who haven't retired yet. However you feel about President Nixon, he did make a contribution to health care reform in America. Whether you believe it's a positive contribution or not. 

I don't have a problem with HMO's as long as they are regulated properly, which they weren't before the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That included a Patient Bill of Rights in it, which essentially means that HMO's and health insurers, can't turn down people who need health insurance when get sick, or put lifetime caps on the amount that people can consume in their health care.

Basically as long as people pay for their share of their health insurance, they can't get dropped from their health coverage. If this was done back in 1971-72, maybe we don't have the most expensive health care system in the developed world right now. 

President Nixon, took a stab at health care reform, President Carter the same thing, President Clinton as well with his famous debacle. President George W. Bush and it took President Obama and a Democratic Congress with large majority's in both chambers to get it passed. All of this work and debates could've been avoided if HMO's were regulated properly from the start and we could've saved our health care system forty years of inefficiency.

If we had a Patient Bill of Rights from the start, we could have saved trillions on health care the last forty years. But perhaps President Nixon and the Democratic Congress then, couldn't predict the abuses that would've come in the future. 

Whether you're a fan of President Nixon or not and yes his main contribution and focus he gave to America was in foreign policy with Russia, China and ending the Vietnam War, he also made a contribution in environmental policy, and in health care as well. And he may of had a good idea at the time, but didn't put the right regulations in place. To prevent the abuses and the costs that came in the future.

Bob Parker: World News Tonight With Peter Jennings- 'Balanced Budget Story From 1995'

Source:Bob Parker- U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1995 and a proponent of a BBA.

"Story about Congress talking about a balanced budget amendment from January 1995.  It is kind of funny to hear what is being said in wake of the current debt ceiling debate." 

From Bob Parker

I've been thinking about the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on and off for about fourteen years now or so (back when I was in kindergarten, ha, ha) since the last time Congress spent time considering it. 

At first I kind of liked the idea as someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, which me to means spend no more than you make and try to save as much as possible and put away as much as possible without hurting yourself. And only spending money on the things that you need and spend that money in the most efficient way as possible. Concepts that the Federal Government doesn't seem to understand, as well as a lot of state government's. 

My main problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, would be the Federal courts or any other courts. Do we want unelected bodies telling the Federal Government how it can spend the tax revenue it collects, which I believe could happen when there are issues of whether Federal budgets are balanced and in the black or not. And when could the Federal budget be in the red, because all Balance Budget Amendments have exceptions for when the budget can be in the red. Like when the country is under attacked or in a depression, when the Federal Government is the only institution thats capable of borrowing money in America. Because they control the national currency and it might take a Federal judge to decide that these things are happening, even if it's obvious to everyone else. 

There are certain times in life for the Federal Government to now borrow money and go in the red and run a deficit. So for me to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, it would have to designed in a way to avoid this. Would be to leave it up to the Congressional Budget Office or Federal Reserve, people who can get fired for not doing a good job. Unlike Federal judges who can only be removed through impeachment and conviction which comes from being corrupt. And generally not from the job they do as judges. 

Or have some type of super majority vote in both chambers of Congress to declare its OK to borrow money, lay out what the conditions are and force Congress to declare them before it borrows money. The Balanced Budget Amendment has no place in today's debt and deficit reduction debate. Because it doesn't have the votes in either chamber of Congress to pass right now. And it would take 5-10 years for it ever to become law anyway because the states would have to approve it. 

But down the road a BBA I believe has some potential if we can keep the Federal courts out of making budget decisions for the Federal Government. A BBA that I could support, would only have three exceptions for the FEDS to borrow money and would have a strict PAYGO (pay as you go) requirement for the FEDS to borrow money. The United States itself would have to be under attacked and for us to be at war. Not a military base oversees but the country physically itself. 

Two, we are either in a depression or recession which would be declared by lets say the Federal Reserve and those would be my only two exceptions. And then the President would have to declare this and it would take a 3/5 Vote in both chambers of Congress to make it official. All other Federal operations would have to be paid for when one of the two exceptions to borrow money hasn't been declared. Including military operations domestic and foreign including war and invasions and disaster relief. 

And these things can be paid for if the Federal Government sets up fund for both of them. And then I would put in things as long as we are under a BBA, that require the Federal Government to stay within economic growth and the rate of inflation. Meaning it couldn't grow higher than those two rates. 

A Balanced Budget Amendment if done right, could result in forcing the Federal Government to be responsible with the tax revenue it collects and set priorities and actually pass a Federal budget every year. Instead of running the country into red and piling on debt that no one can pay back or has the intention of ever paying back.

Conel Rad: Barry Goldwater- '1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage'

Source:Conel Rad- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, at the 1964 GOP National Convention.

"The closing segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice."

From Conel Rad

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.

This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex.

This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian-Right theocratic candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michele Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said: “The problem with America is that we have a moral crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “moral crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them too.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Christian Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

Krazy Kraz: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech- Freedom vs. Communism

Source: Krazy Kraz- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, (R, Arizona)

"Many thanks to all librivox and other readers and public speakers." 

From Krazy Kraz

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom than they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)