Townhall: John C. Goodman: A Republican Vision For Health Care Reform

Source:The New Democrat

The thing about the Republican critique of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, especially from the Tea Party, that has probably annoyed me the most, is the fact that they've never been able to present an alternative of their own. Even when they took back control of the House of Representatives in 2011, they offered nothing but but repeal and cut. "We'll get rid of ObamaCare or, at least try to, knowing that the Democratic Senate will block it and then we'll start over and do it again (50 times and counting)."  The Keystone Cops were not that dumb. They probably would have stopped at 10.  The GOP message seemed to be. "Let's go back to the old health insurance system, pre-2010, that left roughly fifty-million Americans without coverage and then maybe we'll come up with something better later (Please hold your breath).

Its is now 2014, another election year, with a new Congress and still the same players in charge. A Republican House and a Democratic Senate and over three years later still waiting to see the House Republican Leadership articulate an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.  Had they had that alternative, gee I don't know, maybe back in 2009-10 when they were completely out of power, when voters were saying we don't like ObamaCare yet but we don't like the old system either the  Republicans could have said, "We understand both your concerns and this is the alternative we would offer if we had the power to do it."

We have seen proposals from different Republican groups. including the Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute but without Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor in the House saying,  "This is the way we should go.  Lets assign that bill to the proper committees, have hearings, and even mark it up and maybe we'll get some House Democrats, who are worried about reelection because of ObamaCare, to join us."  But, we're still waiting for the Republican congressional leadership to articulate a health care reform plan. 

Commentary Magazine: Tom Wilson: Leftist Fascism On The March

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who thinks that fascism is only a thing of the right, or even just the far-right, is not familiar with the communist republics around the world today or back in the day in Eastern Europe, especially in the slavic states. There are big government fascist states on the left in Latin America such as Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, and some in Central America.  Of course there are rightist fascist states in Arabia and the broader Middle East such as Syria, and Iran, as well as developing democracies such as Libya and Iraq.

Fascists deny the right of political opposition to exist.  They deny the right of people to speak out  against their government.  We see this in the Republican Party today with the Tea Party and their less than brilliant notion that you are either with them one hundred percent or you are a RINO (Republican in Name Only).  You either believe in our notion of a traditional American family or you are Un-American.

I don't agree with Commentary's Tom Wilson's original title of his piece, "Liberalism Ends at Home." He suggests that Liberals are fascists and against free speech with which they disagree and believe it should be outlawed.  The whole notion of freedom of speech and thought is the core of liberalism.  The founders of America were liberals rebelling against the thought and speech control policies of the British monarchy.  If you support governmental activity to block free speech you are not a liberal.  The idea that government, or your political faction,  always knows best and cannot permit political opposition is an anti-liberal idea.

There's nothing liberal about fascism or statism, the idea that people are generally stupid and need government to protect them, even from themselves. These far-left and far-right big government  politics have nothing to do with either liberalism or conservatism, in its classical sense.  The modern Republican Party has perverted the idea of conservatism.  The English Conservative Party offers an enlightening contrast which current Republicans are probably too stupid to perceive.

Free speech and freedom of thought are exactly that and don't imply agreement with any particular political position. We live in a liberal democracy with the right to speak and believe as we please, even if we offend other people.  That also means having to hear speech with which we disagree.

Statists on the far-left are against free speech and hate speech with which they disagree if it offends groups that they care about. They have a major lack of consistency, as Bill Maher has said on his show (hardly a conservative by the way).  They condone making fun of fundamentalist Christians, especially if they are Anglo-Saxon, southern and rural but condemn making fun of Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims.

I'm a proud liberal, always have been and always will be.  I take it as a compliment when someone calls me a liberal, even if they don't mean it as such.  I have a problem when partisan rightists throw out the word, "liberal" to put people down, as if it is a bad word.  It is clear that they are ignorant of the fact that the U.S.A. was founded by liberals as a liberal nation.

They are either liars or don't have a damn clue about what the hell they are talking about.  Free speech, even hate speech, is a perfect example of that.  Liberals believe that all people have inalienable rights to their own opinions and expressions. 

Hoover Institution: Bruce Thornton: Illiberal Liberalism

Source:Hoover Institution

Reading right-wingers about people they call "elitist Democrats," or wine and cheese Democrats, people whom I call wine and cheese progressives, the wing of the Democratic Party that believes that anyone who didn't graduate from an Ivy League, other Northeastern university or a school on the west coast is not real bright and needs big government to take care of them, is a little difficult, if I were to take their arguments seriously (good luck with that).  On the other hand, I can just enjoy the unintentional humor and hypocrisy of it and think to myself, "Damn, these guys (including Ann Coulter) have a serious set of balls, balls that you could use to play basketball."  If you've ever been hit in the head with a basketball, you know that it it hurts like hell.  It's like getting punched by a world heavyweight champion boxer.  I would only recommend it for my worst enemy.

Seriously, these are the people who run the country.  They have the money to do it or they serve and are in business to protect the people who do it.  They get on Democrats for elitism when they are constantly putting down organized labor, government workers, and blue collar workers, trying to transfer wealth from the middle class to the upper class and looking for ways to increase taxes on low-income Americans.

You have elitist Democrats like the Kennedy Family and others and you have elitist Republicans like the Bush Family and many others.  You know what they have in common.  They all have a hell of a lot of money and have a hard time communicating with working class people who aren't Ivy League educated, who drink beer, eat chicken wings, hot dogs and french fries.  And go bowling, which I guess is a sin amongst yuppy snobs and elitists on both sides of the isle.  They have a hard time communicating with people who work very hard for a living and spend their free time doing working class activities like going to ball games.

Hearing someone like Bruce Thornton, who may or may not be a right-wing snob himself, using the same language that other right-wingers use when they talk about elitist Democrats, is like trying to swallow a mouth full of horse shit.  It's a little tough to swallow, even if you had to in order to survive because there was nothing else to eat, that is if you take them seriously.  If you don't, you can just laugh it off and make fun of them. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Technically That's Illegal

Source:Liberty Pen- On The John Stossel show, talking about big government.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Politicians keep Americans in a perpetual state of lawbreaking. Liberty Pen."

Good rule for government: Don't propose new rules unless you actually understand your current rules and are able to enforce them.  That might seem obvious but, in a lot of cases, that's what makes government inefficient.  The rule books are not understandable, even by the people whom taxpayers pay to enforce them.  There are so many rules that some of them are unenforced because of lack of resources, or the rules are poorly written, or unnecessary. Another good rule would be don't outlaw things that don't involve one person hurting another innocent person. Instead concentrate regulations to protect the innocent from predators. Not protecting people from themselves. Tobacco is a dangerous product, but unless someone is being forced to smoke, or face worst consequences like being physically hurt, or killed, don't outlaw tobacco. And instead regulate it. And that would just be one example of a possible overregulation. 

The Obama Administration gets stereotyped as a proponent of big government, overtaxation, and over regulation, but they've decided, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, that they aren't going to enforce marijuana prohibition on using and possessing small amounts.  They are going to enforce the prohibition on selling marijuana only in states where it is illegal.  They are doing this to conserve resources for use in higher priority areas of law enforcement. Now I think the Federal Government shouldn't outlaw marijuana anywhere (for adults that is). But if the Obama Administration were really big government over regulators, (lets say) then they would enforce current Federal marijuana as is. Instead of using their right to prioritize how they enforce Federal narcotics laws. And the reason why they've weakened marijuana enforcement, is because they're responsible for so many more other Federal regulations. And decided that arresting adults simply for using, or possessing marijuana, shouldn't be a high priority. 

The U.S. tax code is another great example of runaway regulation. Through things like corporate welfare, special breaks for the wealthy that allow for them to essentially not pay Federal income taxes. As well as Congress not supplying the IRS with resources to enforce this bloated tax code.  I'm not looking to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service but they are only human and there's a limit to what they can do. So if you are in government, make sure that you understand your proposed new rules and that the people who'll have to enforce them understand them as well. Again we just need to use basic commonsense here. Are we writing laws to discourage individual decision-making and thinking and trying to make individual decisions for individuals? In other words attempting to protect people from themselves. Or are we writing and enforcing laws to protect the innocent from predators that would hurt them. If it's the ladder than those laws might make sense and be useful. But if it's the former than those laws will probably be wasteful, because they're unnecessary. 

Thatcherite Scot: 'Margaret Thatcher's First Speech at White House as PM!'

Source:Thatcherite Scot- United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) speaking at The White House December, 1979.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Margaret Thatcher's First Speech at White House as PM!" 

From Thatcherite Scot

This speech was given about three weeks after the Iranian hostage crisis in which Iranian Islamists took fifty Americans, working at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, hostage in November of 1979.  This was Thatcher's first visit to Washington after becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, about three months earlier. She ran on a platform of completely changing Britain's socialist ways and moving past a welfare state that tried take complete care of all citizens.

Prime Minister Thatcher wanted to create an opportunity and entrepreneurial society where Brits would be able to take care of themselves.  She did not want the British government to be running major sectors of the economy.  She wanted energy and aviation to be run by the private sector.  She was certainly not a socialist  nor even a liberal, conservative, or even a libertarian in the American sense.  By American standards, the best way to describe her would be as an economic Right-Progressive, similar to Nelson Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower, Tom Dewey, Richard Nixon, and other Progressive Republicans. 

Prime Minster Thatcher didn't want to eliminate the welfare state in Britain but she didn't want the welfare state to take care of people who could take care of themselves if they just had a good job.  She thought that the government should not try to run people's lives and that Brits should be permitted to manage their own economic affairs.  The results, in terms of where Britain was economically when she took over in 1979 and when she left office in 1989, show that she was very successful.

Marijuana Policy Project: Morgan Fox: Maryland House Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana in Surprising Move

Source:The New Democrat

This is a good first step. I would've voted for it, if I were a member of the Maryland Assembly, House or Senate.  Both chambers of the Assembly have passed decriminalization of marijuana and, surprisingly, Governor Martin O'Malley announced late this Monday afternoon that he will sign the bill when it comes to his desk. Surprisingly, because previously in this Assembly session he had said that he was against decriminalization of marijuana.

I twice voted for O'Malley for governor and I'm proud I did so.  I'm not implying that he doesn't support this bill but, politically, if he wants to run a credible presidential campaign in 2016, he's going to need to get to the Left of Hillary Clinton and appeal to young voters.  Then, he can portray her as someone without a strong political core who is running on her name and just wants  to be the first female President of the United States.

Favoring decriminalization of marijuana at the state level gives him that opening.  He could say to young liberals (hopefully I still count as one, age wise) that the War on Drugs has failed and we need a new approach to dealing with narcotics.   For starters, we stop arresting people for simple marijuana possession or use. I believe in this and Secretary Clinton is either a drug warrior she or won't take a strong stance on the issue.

The bill, itself, is a strong first step but the country needs to go further and so does Maryland.  Use and possession of small amounts of  marijuana should be legal for everyone in the state who's 21 and over and not currently incarcerated.  This drug should be regulated like alcohol because they have similar side-effects and, if anything, marijuana is less dangerous.  We should save our precious prison spaces for real-life criminals who are a threat to Marylanders and other Americans. 

The Dean Martin Show: Rodney Dangerfield 1973 Standup: No Respect?

Source: Dino Forever- Comedian Rodney Dangerfield.

Source:The New Democrat

I never really got the Rodney Dangerfield no respect routine, I mean, I get it, but I guess I don't agree with it. Rod is seen as a working class hero's comedian with a very quick wit, a great sense of humor and a talent for  one-liners.  That is his background.  He is not Dean Martin,  Sammy Davis,  George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Johnny Carson or any of the other great comedians who have both great wit and  quick intelligence.  They kept up with current affairs and were always able to find the funny side in them.

Rod is sort of the king of the one-liners.  They are mostly about his own life.  A central theme is his perceived lack of respect from others.  He used that routine to make a hell of a career for himself but he's not in the same league as Johnny Carson and the others I listed above.  He's simply step or two below them.  I would compare him to someone like Andrew Dice Clay or maybe a Nick DiPaulo.  Dice, I believe, was inspired by Rodney.  They have similar routines. 

Bill Cosby is a perfect example of a superstar comedian who's at the top of heap, a so-called A-List  comedian.  At that next level, are comedians who are very funny and can always make you laugh but  the topics they cover, like everyday life or their own lives, put them a step or two behind the comedians who can make fun of entertainers, politicians, athletes, and or other celebrities because they keep up with those people and are very knowledgable about those subjects.

Rodney Dangerfield is at the second level, perhaps not B comedians but B+ or A-.  You can be a Hall of Fame athlete without being one of the top five players, or even in the top five percent of players, who ever played your sport, as long as you were one of the best of your era.  Rodney Dangerfield was a great comedian but not one of of the best all time.  He's not quite in that elite group. 
Source:Dino Forever