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.

XMan 25: Houston Rodeo BBQ- Miss Blue Jeans Contest

Source:XMan 25- Miss Blue Jeans Texas.

Source:The Action Blog

What more can a guy ask for ( a straight guy, at least ) than beautiful sexy women on stage posing for a Miss Jeans contest. Wearing tight t-shirts or tank tops with cowgirls boots, and western belts, with western belt buckles. Just wish I was in Houston for that contest or even knew it existed at all ahead of time.

Source: XMan 25- Miss Blue Jeans

This is why guys love cowgirls or at least a major reason, because they tend to be well-proportioned, filled out, they look like real women instead of women thinking they're going to be the next super model or valley girl pop star and the only way to do that is to starve them self. You don't tend to see bone-thin women as cowgirls simply because they wouldn't be up for that type of lifestyle and culture. They wear a lot of tight denim and boots, short tight tops and belts, and to pull that type of wardrobe off, you need to have the body for it and to look good in those outfits. You need to have real meat on your bones and be healthy. To not only look the part, but also to be able to do the work that is required of being a cowgirl. Working on a ranch, racing horses and cattle.

Source: Hive Miner- Miss Blue Jeans

Cowboys tend to look women with meat on their bones. And that is what you get with cowgirls who tend to be strong healthy women, who can take care of themselves, but also look great and know how to have a great time. Which is what you see with these women at this contest.Again, I just wish I was there or at least knew that this contest was going on and be able to see it somewhere when it was actually going on, instead of finding out about it five years later. But I'm glad I'm able to see it now and watch it.

Source: FRS FreeState via Flickr- Miss Blue Jeans

My favorite model or contestant in this contest is the woman you see just up above. Beautiful woman, dark hair, beautiful body, great jeans and boots, tight red t-shirt. This is what cowgirls look like at least when they're working and having a great time. She would've gotten my vote as Miss Blue Jeans for Houston, at least because she represents exactly what I'm talking about here. This is what cowgirls look like which is beautiful, sexy, very feminine, and yet strong enough to be a great cowgirl and do live that life and do that kind of work.

Azteka 230: Sexy Biker Chick- From a B-Movie

Source:Azteca 230- Sexy Biker Chick, from the 1990s.

Source:The New Democrat

This might not be fair because I have no idea what the name of this movie is, or have even seen it. But from this short clip of it, it looks like one of those bad movies, that are poorly written, with real cheesy characters, but with at least one sexy woman in it that sort of comes in and saves the day. And at least keeps guys in the seats, or prevents us from changing the channel. As someone whose been dealing with insomnia my whole adult life, I can personally testify about being up at two or three am with nothing to do and watching the tube, trying to pass the time until I’m tired enough to go to bed. And you see a lot of cable movies on like this for guys like me. Who can’t get to sleep, but perhaps looking to get off.

And seeing late movies like this that were made for about hundred bucks, well perhaps more than that and the movie looks a lot like this. Not even a b movie or perhaps even a c movie with a cast that no one has ever heard of or seen before, because they make their livings doing movies like this. You see movies like this late at night all the time on Cinemax, HBO and Showtime. Basically a bad movie, but with a very physically attractive cast wearing tight sexy outfits. Doing things that sexy people do, like the women in this scene. This video you see here, is from YouTube. Called, “Biker Chick in Tight Blue Levis Jeans.” That is what you in movies like this. Gorgeous sexy women who make their livings getting guys off. Basically, because that is what they’re good at.

There are plenty of good movies with gorgeous sexy women, who can act as well and where they have a main role in the movie. And you see them kick ass in skin-tight outfits and boots. Generally skinny denim jeans and boots. And in many movies with the women in Levis and boots. One For The Money, with Katherine Heigle from 2012, is an example of that. But lets say you work nights and get home late and like most people aren’t ready to go to bed as soon as you get home even if it’s after midnight, or you been partying all night, or just got home from a long flight and you’re flipping around the tube when you get home. You’ll see movies like this. With a no name cast, with no name writers, where even the plot wasn’t thought out very well. With the main focus of the movie gorgeous women who kick ass, in tight outfits.
Source:Azteka 230

Notes on Liberty: Bruno Gonclaves Rosi- ‘Communism/Socialism is Rubbish- Both in Practice & In Theory’

Source:Slide Player- Communism & socialism.

Source:The New Democrat 

“I’m getting tired of reading and listening to so-called libertarian or conservative people saying that “in theory socialism is beautiful.” No, it’s not. In theory, socialism can be summed up as “the end of private property.” This is how Karl Marx summed it up. The genius of Ludwig von Mises is precisely in the fact that he did not have to wait until 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, to realize that this does not make sense. When the Soviet Union was still a young country sweeping intellectuals around the world, von Mises made the following remark: without private property, there is no supply and demand. Without supply and demand, there is no price formation. Without prices the economic calculation is impossible. And that is precisely what happened in the USSR and happens in countries that follow the path of socialism: without the compass of free market prices, governors can not make decisions about allocating resources. Socialism is the death of rationality in economics. Socialism is rubbish in practice because before that it’s rubbish in theory. Please stop talking nonsense. The free market, on the other hand, is beautiful in practice because first of all, it is beautiful in theory.”

From Notes On Liberty 

"Karl Marx remains deeply important today not as the man who told us what to replace capitalism with, but as someone who brilliantly pointed out certain of its problems. The School of Life, a pro-Capitalist institution, takes a look... 

Source:The School of Life- Socialist hero Karl Marx 

From The School of Life

Before someone argues that of course socialism works, just look at Britain, France, Scandinavia, and perhaps Europe in general, this is not about socialism at least in the democratic sense. This is about communism, which is different and is the authoritarian wing of socialism.

Every social democratic or democratic socialist country in the world, has a capitalist economic system. Their capitalist system is just different than America’s and even Canada’s and even Germany’s. And socialism along with communism, aren’t just economic theories and systems, but political ideologies and governmental systems as well.

Europe with their social democratic/democratic socialist economies as well as forms of government, of course look different from America, which is a liberal democratic federal government, with governmental power is spread out and where individualism is rampant and encouraged.

People on the Far-Left everywhere and not just in America, argue that we don’t know if communism and socialism have failed or not, because they’re never in accurately put into practice. But we know that is simply not true. We know that social democracy/democratic socialism, have been put into practice and we know the results from that economic system and form of government. And we know that communism has been put into practice and the results of that economic system and form of government.

How do we know how socialism and communism work? Because the people who advocate for communism are actually talking about Europe and other social democratic countries around the world like Japan, Australia, Canada. That wealth should be highly taxed and spread out. That no one should have to go without the basic necessities of life regardless of their education and production levels. That you should have a big centralized welfare state to provide people with the insurances that they need to live well. That is the economic system of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia, Japan as well.

What Communists do is make the same arguments that Democratic Socialists do, but take it further on both economics and expand their ideology to how government should operate and the role of state and and people in society. That the state should be put in charge of the people to serve the people on their behalf and meet everyone’s needs for them. That people sacrifice choice and freedom, for economic and physical security. And as long as everyone cooperates and doesn’t oppose the state, they would live in prosperity. T

Communists always promise that communism and the contract that Communists propose when they run for office. Whether they officially label themselves as Communists like in Cuba, or are dishonest with their ideologically and govern as closeted Communists, like what we see in Venezuela. Where the party in power there is actually called the Socialist Party, but they effectively at least govern as Cuban Communists. With a little more media, opposition, and freedom for the people.

Why Communism fails is because people, human beings in general tend to want freedom and be able to make their own decisions and self-determination. Wherever they live in the world, at least when they’re being honest. And that includes the social democratic/democratic socialist countries of Europe ( with the key word being democratic ) and when you take that freedom away and you take competition away, you also take away individualism and creativity, the incentive for people to improve and be productive, because they’ve been promised that whatever happens with them and however they perform in life at whatever they do, that big government no matter what will always be there to take care of them.

People all over the world tend to operate from fear: that if they don’t succeed and do well in life, bad things will happen to them that government won’t be able to bail them out and make it all better again for them. Which tends to be all the incentive that most people need to succeed and be productive in life. Because people tend not to want to live on Welfare and be able to do well in life so they don’t need Welfare to support themselves.

In a communist system and I would argue at least even in a democratic socialist system, that fear is taken away. Because social welfare benefits from those countries at least in those developed countries, are so generous, that people know if they fail, they’ll always have big government there to bail them out. With our more liberal capitalist economic system, we don’t have that generous taxpayer funded insurance system to ball us out when we fall on hard times or even fail. Which gives us all the incentive in the world to succeed in life.

Seriously, if you don’t believe communism is a failure both as an economic and governmental system, spend some time in Cuba or North Korea. People don’t flea from countries that are doing well and are prosperous. And take long dangerous boat rides from Cuba to Florida, to escape the authoritarianism of Cuba and try to live in freedom of America.

Americans don’t escape America to go live in Cuba or China, because they can’t handle personal decision-making anymore and want to go live on Welfare in Cuba, the Communist Republic of Korea, ( which is actually North Korea really is ) or China. During the height of the Cold War, about half of the world live under one authoritarian government or another, including Europe. Now most of the world especially in the West, no longer lives under communism or another form of authoritarianism.