TIME: Lilly Rothman: ‘See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970’

Posted on July 25, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Women's Liberation

Source:TIME– Hugh Hefner vs radical feminists in 1970.

“When Susan Brownmiller and Sally Kempton appeared as representatives of the women’s liberation movement alongside Hugh Hefner on The Dick Cavett Show in 1970, Cavett joked, “We really set you up tonight, didn’t we?”

Though Hefner’s Playboy was thriving, Cavett’s line really applied more to him. As seen in this exclusive clip from the upcoming episode of CNN’s The Seventies, airing on Thursday at 9:00 p.m., Hefner seemed to have no idea what was coming.

From the minute he referred to the activists as “girls,” he was put in his place. The women took full advantage of their public forum to express thoughts and feelings that had been bottled up for so long, and the nation took notice. When TIME’s Person of the Year honor for 1975 was given to 12 separate Women of the Year, Brownmiller was one of them.

The magazine dubbed her the “second-sex scholar” and explained why she deserved the recognition…

Source:TIME

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society.

Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in-large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s.

American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing: you would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine.

But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: Megyn Kelly- Free Speech Under Assault

Posted on July 25, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Attachment-1-1340

Source: Liberty Pen

Source: Liberty Pen: Megyn Kelly- Free Speech Under Assault

Hate speech, which I believe this anti-Muslim event and their drawings of Muhammad clearly falls under, is protected by the First Amendment. Government, can’t shut someone up, because they, or other people disagree with what someone is saying. Or are even assaulted and even find it hateful. You don’t like liberal democracy and our liberal First Amendment, perhaps America is not the country for you. And you would be better off living in the Middle East, or some place where you won’t have those issues to deal with.

And another great thing about the First Amendment, is when some asshole says something hateful about some group, guess what, that person opens them self up to replies and responses. People being able to tell that person what they think about what that person has to say. And even hold rallies against that person. Bill Maher, who I don’t generally put in the asshole category and tend to even agree with him when it comes to his criticisms about the Christian-Right and Muslims, when he doesn’t lump all Christians and Muslims as bad people, or whatever. Found out how liberal our First Amendment is last fall. About his comments over Islam.

When the Far-Right in America, whether its Rush Limbaugh or some other fathead, says provocative if not derogatory things about Latinos, Muslims, even women, Americans let Rush know exactly what they think about him. When Megyn Kelly even, accuses President Obama of trying to bring socialism to America, or whatever she’s complaining about the President, or says that he’s governing like a dictator, I correct her on my blog, when I don’t have anything better to do. You know Free Speech, is not for everybody. Meaning not everyone can handle it as far as listening to it. Of course all Americans have the First Amendment right, but not all Americans can handle other Americans having that same right. So they try to shut the other side up.

To quote President Andrew Shepard from The American President, which is one my favorite movies. “America is hard. You have to want it to be able to handle it.” More of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. And President Shepard played by Michael Douglas, was referring to Free Speech. He said that we all have this right, but that right protects all Americans right to Free Speech. And he basically said that the Free Speech is only worth something if Americans are willing to fight for someone else’s right to speech. The right for someone to say and believe things that you might find disgusting.

Insulting speech and hate speech, we have to fight for those things to. Because when Americans are no longer able to be critical and even say things that are offensive, we lose the ability to be individuals. And end up just agreeing and loving each other and never learning anything new. Because we see everyone as perfect. And there’s nothing perfect, or collectivist about liberal democracy and Free Speech. It’s a very imperfect system and form of government. But it’s still the best system in the world and why so many people leave their country that doesn’t have these rights to come here. Instead of going to Europe, or Canada. Actually, people still leave Europe to come to America.

Posted in Liberty Pen | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Gustavo Lagos: The Best of Ann Coulter- Political Satirist or Bullshit Artist?

Posted on July 25, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Asshole

Source: Gustavo Lagos 

Source: Gustavo Lagos: The Best of Ann Coulter

I think Alan Colmes had the best line in this video. When he said that he thinks that he has Ann Coulter all wrong. His point was that he now sees her as just a political satirist who says all sorts of insulting if not hateful and certainly ignorant things to make people on the Far-Right look bad. I see her as Far-Right and not as a Center-Right Conservative for obvious reasons. Conservatives, tend to be a lot more intelligent and at least try to back up what they say with actual facts. With Ann Coulter, she speaks her mind and is provocative intentionally and then she tries to explain what she means by that later, if she can. The way I would put Ann Coulter, is that she’s a political satirist at best and a pretty good one at times.

If Coulter is not a satirist, she’s quite frankly a bullshit artist. Someone who speaks out of their ass on a regular basis. Either intentionally to sell her books and columns, or because like most assholes, she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. But because her views are so outer space and light years away from Earth, people are interested in her, because of how different she is. Coulter to me is like a rich women’s Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin, very entertaining and at times a pretty good political analyst and satirist, but not someone you want filling out your taxes for you, or perhaps watching your kids, let alone holding a responsible job in public office. And Ann Coulter, is slightly better than that. Because I wouldn’t want her to watch my kids, but if she did my taxes she could probably find a few tax breaks for me.

Some entertainers and commentators who weren’t very popular in their time, but lets say a generation later they look great. Because they fit that era and then look brilliant and become pop culture heroes and celebrities and so-forth. Have books and perhaps even movies made about them. Lenny Bruce, who was a comedian in the 1950s and was probably twenty-years ahead of his time, because he used a lot of adult language and talked about adult subjects in his act. With Coulter the obvious is true. But she’s not twenty years before her time. More like 80-100. When gays were still locked in the closet. Before it was common for women to work outside of the home. Before women could even vote and I could go down the line.

Ann Coulter, whether she actually believes in what she says and doesn’t have this moment, “gee, did I really just say that? I’m not sure I believe my own words.”, or she’s really as dumb as a brick and makes and makes both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann look like genius’, knows how to get people to think and talk. And generally it is a lot of negative things about her. But whether this is intentional or not on her part, she’s a hell of a businesswomen. She knows how to sell her books and columns and the more attention she gets about them and generally outside of so-called Fox News and Far-Right publications and even some Center-Right publications, it’s generally bad publicity. But publicity good and bad sells her books and columns. Is she a political satirist, or bullshit artist? If only I was a mind-reader.

Posted in Ann Coulter | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Michael Parkinson Show: Diana Dors, Kenneth Williams & Desmond Morris (1971)

Posted on July 25, 2015 by Erik Schneider

English Muffin

Source:Anorak– English Muffin Diana Dors, on The Michael Parkinshow in 1971.

“Diana Dors, Kenneth Williams and Desmond Wilcox on Parkinson show 1971”

From Anorak

From every interview I’ve seen of Diana Dors at least from the 1970s, she reminds me a lot of another great actress who was also as cute as a button, a very big button, but she reminds me a lot of the great Shelley Winters.

Diana and Shelly Winters always had something funny to say and had an opinion on everything and who also had great comedic timing.

Again, as I blogged before, I wish Diana was around a lot longer. She’s only about 40 when this interview was done in 1971 and only had thirteen years to live at this point. Also without BBC and other British television networks, we would’ve had a hard time seeing her doing anything at least in America. Because she stopped working here and rarely came back.

Desmond Morris, was social biologist who studied human behavior. And what he was talking about in this video was how people behave and look in the act of sex. And trying to fit his demonstration in why some women are as he put it sex bombs, or sex symbols. Talking about how people’s eyes tend to close and their lips get bigger in the act of performing sex.

With Diana, making the crack that this happens to her all the time. That her lips get bigger. But there’s lot more to Diana Dors in why she was a goddess, or I prefer English Muffin and great English baby-faced goddess. Who was born as a baby obviously, but never lost her baby face even after she got a bit more plump in the 1970s. Which if anything might of just made her cuter.

Diana Dors, reminds me a lot of Shelley Winters as far as stature and personality. Someone who was very adorable obviously. Who was very versatile as an actress, who was also a hell of an actress and someone you wouldn’t forget if you saw her. With a great personality and sense of humor who could always drop the humor and make people laugh. And pull jokes out of nowhere even when others were talking.

Diana had a tendency to steal the show even when she was on with other comedians, like you see in this interview. But as Desmond Wilcox put it, she was sex bomb, or as we say in America a bombshell. Diana, was a hot, baby-faced, goddess with a great body that guys dreamed about. And again it would’ve been nice if she was around a lot longer.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Posted in Baby Di, Hollywood Goddess, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

C-SPAN: President Bill Clinton’s 1996 Welfare Reform Press Statement

Posted on July 24, 2015 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-262

Source: C-SPAN-President William J. Clinton

Source: C-SPAN: President Bill Clinton’s 1996 Welfare Reform Press Statement

The 1996 Welfare to Work Law, I believe is the best part of the Clinton Presidency. Along with moving the Democratic Party back to the Center-Left and making it a national party again. That can win outside of Washington, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the traditional McGovernite and more social democratic areas of the country. Because the Welfare to Work Law, gave millions of Americans who probably only knew Welfare as far as any income that was coming into their homes, the opportunity to go to work. To finish their education and get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work is really about.

The only way to cut poverty in America, is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to move up the economic ladder and become economically self-sufficient. That gets to things like education and job creation, as well as economic development and infrastructure in low-income communities. You can give someone on public assistance the biggest public assistance checks that you possibly can that American taxpayers are willing to subsidize. But as long as people on public assistance are collecting those checks and can’t support themselves without those checks, they’re on Welfare and living in poverty.

So to actually move people out of poverty, you have to empower them to get a good job. And tell them that they can’t stay on Welfare indefinitely and use that time to improve themselves and prepare to become members of the American workforce. That means childcare for their kids, requiring parents who are no longer involved in their kids lives to pay their child support payments. Encouraging employers to hire and train people who are on Welfare. And making education and job training available to people on Welfare so they can finish their education and get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

As President Clinton said many times, the Democratic Party should be the party that is about opportunity, empowerment, liberalization, liberation. Liberalization and liberation being my words, but that we should be a party that is about using government to empower people. Using a limited responsible government to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom who are struggling to work their way up the economic ladder and be able to live in freedom. Like most of the rest of the country. Not using government to make more people dependent. Or saying that people who are low-skilled and have kids can stay on public assistance indefinitely simply because they are low-skilled and have kids. As if they are disabled, or something for those reasons. Welfare to Work, is a big part of that.

Posted in WJC Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dandelion Salad: Elizabeth Schulte- ‘Socialism According to Eugene V. Debbs’

Posted on July 23, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Eugene Debbs For President

Source:Dandelion Salad– Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debbs.

“What did the man who Bernie Sanders today claims as his personal hero really stand for? Elizabeth Schulte tells the story of American socialism’s best-known figure.

IT’S NOT your typical presidential candidate who identifies as a socialist, but Bernie Sanders does. A poster of Eugene V. Debs, the popular Socialist Party leader of the early 20th century, hangs on his office wall as a tribute to Sanders’ self-proclaimed hero.

Like Debs, who ran for president five times, Sanders is also running for president. But that, my friends, is where the similarities end.

The socialism of Bernie Sanders—who says he’s running as a Democrat to shift the debate to the left–is fundamentally different from that of Eugene Debs, who committed his life to spreading the ideas of revolutionary socialism. Sanders is promoting something that falls far, far short of the fundamental change that Debs fought for. Sanders relegates socialism to the realm of nice ideas that can be talked about, but never really be implemented—while he accepts what little the Democratic Party is willing to concede.

For Sanders, the working class is a “constituency,” a backdrop to the political campaigns he runs and the legislative work he does. For Debs, the working class was in the foreground of everything he hope to achieve—because he believed, as a convinced Marxist, that workers have to make the fundamental and lasting transformation that he called socialism.”

From Dandelion Salad

So I guess at least according to Elizabeth Schulte, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Eugene Debs and to the left of Progressive’s Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. And I’ll explain what I mean by that.

Eugene Debbs, Marxist, had he ever became President of the United States and had the support of Congress, would’ve outlawed capitalism, private enterprise and that includes property rights. Perhaps, but not guaranteed, just short of taking people’s personal ownership of their personal property away from. Meaning an individual, could own their own home and car (to use as examples) but those things would’ve been made by state-owned companies.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist: Democratic Socialists, believe in at least a certain level of personal autonomy. That includes both personal and economic freedom. That even includes the ability to vote for opposition parties and opposition parties that are on the other side of the political spectrum.

Bernie, doesn’t have a problem with private enterprise and even capitalism. Just how the resources and income and distributed. So if you’re doing well in America through the private sector, great. According to Bernie, but you’re going to pay enough in taxes to see that those who are struggling are also taken care of.

Bernie Sanders, is not running to completely change the American economic system and destroy the liberal capitalist model, our liberalized economic system, that has liberated so many people out of poverty in America.

What Senator Sanders wants to do is add a socialist component to our liberal economic system built around a large central government. To see that no one has to go without and live in poverty. As well as invest in our American capitalist private enterprise economy. Things like education, infrastructure, energy, immigration, better trade deals according to Bernie. So that more Americans can succeed in our private sector. And not have to live off of public assistance to take care of them.

Posted in Bernie Sanders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Bill Whittle: ‘Defense Debacle: Should Conservatives Cut Military Spending?’

Posted on July 23, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Bill Whittle
I think its obvious the United States defense budget should be and has been on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. And it has been since the 2011 Budget Control Act, that was negotiated between Congress and the Obama Administration, that was part of the debt ceiling agreement from that year. And the question for me at least and many others both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, is to make savings in the defense budget. I think savings is the key word here, since our military is doing things for other countries that those countries could do for themselves. And that there things in America where our military perhaps should be doing more. Like in Central America, to use as an example.

And when I’m talking about savings in the defense budget, I look at developed countries, large developed countries, that no longer need us to defend them. Like in Europe, especially in Germany and then go to Saudi Arabia and then move over to Japan and Korea. We’re already making savings in Iraq and Afghanistan, by turning over the defense and the main responsibility for those countries defense to Iraq and Afghanistan. But we’re no longer going to have to spend, borrow really, a hundred-billion dollars a year to defend the Iraq. A country of thirty-million people that is roughly the size of California physically.

So when I’m looking at making savings in the U.S. defense budget as a Liberal Hawk lets say, I’m looking at areas where we don’t need to spending any money at all. Like defending developed countries, or developing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, who both have emerging militaries that are ready to defend their own countries. The Iraqi Military right now is fighting and defeating ISIS in their own country. And speaking of ISIS, that is not where we should cutting the budget. But instead investing whatever we need to, to make sure that Iraq and Syria, don’t become what Afghanistan was for the Taliban in the 1990s. Their own terrorist state.

America, should stop defending countries that can defend themselves. We should be helping countries that want to be our partners, but are currently poor and aren’t available to completely defend themselves. I believe Columbia would fall into that category. Perhaps Mexico as well at least when it comes to corruption. Iraq and Afghanistan, still need us to assist them and give them resources to defend themselves. That their military and law enforcement agencies can use for their own defense. And of course ISIS, we need to be a major player there from the air. With our partners on the ground from NATO and the Arab League, taking it to ISIS on the ground to defeat them. And if we need to aid our partners on the ground in that war, we should be doing that.

So when it comes to the defense budget. Sure, eliminate fighters jets that don’t either work, or are no longer needed. Eliminate bases that we no longer need. But if we want to make real savings in the defense budget to cut our debt and deficit, look to developing countries that we’re responsible for defending. Stop going to war on the credit card. Especially wars that we don’t have to fight. Require Congress and the Administration to pay for all of our military operations. But don’t do these things and not still do what America needs to defend itself. Don’t cut the military budget simply because it’s so big and so much bigger than any other military budget in the world. And invest in the military where we need new resources to keep our country as safe as possible. Like dealing with ISIS and making sure our neighbors are doing their part to keep terrorism out of the neighborhood.

Posted in New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Life & Liberty Magazine: David Housholder Interviewing Gary Johnson in 2012

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Liberal-Libertarian?

Liberal-Libertarian?


Life & Liberty Magazine: David Householder Interviewing Gary Johnson in 2012

Any chance I get to speak out and speak up for liberalism, I do that and that is exactly what this opportunity here is. Which is what I’m going to do in speaking out for liberal internationalism. David Housholder, a self-described liberal-libertarian, I guess interviewing Gary Johnson, back in 2012 about foreign affairs and national security. Governor Johnson, I at least believe he fits that same label. And I add liberal to that, because he doesn’t bash government. And say government has practically no role in serving people in need. But takes more of a federalist approach to those issues. And is not even against a strong national defense, or an isolationist. But believes America can’t defend the world by ourselves and that our partners need to contribute to that defense as well.

I haven’t seen many speeches and ideas from Gary Johnson when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But what I get from this interview back in 2012 on these issues is that we aren’t that much different, but I’m going to add a few things to it. Like with Europe and why isn’t Europe defending itself, instead of Americans taxpayers having to pay for that. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, which already has one of the largest and most developed militaries in the world. Japan and Korea, two of the largest economies in the world and two of the most developed economies in the world. And yet American taxpayers have to pay for the defense of both of those countries. That defense, should be the key word here. Protecting our own first. Working with our allies when issues like innocent people being murdered by their own government, or being invaded by a predatory country.

Not that I’m in favor of adopting the Scandinavian, or European social democratic economic model, but a big reason why their welfare states are so generous, is because they spend so little on national defense. Why is that? Because America at the expense of American taxpayers has Europe’s back when it comes to national defense. Same thing with Japan as well. We should be moving past NATO and instead Europe should develop their own European Defense Force as either part of the European Union, or some new federal European state. And be the main provider for their own defense. And that would mean they would need to spend 3-4% of their own resources to do this. Which would be an economic boom for them and allow for them to bring their unemployment way down. America, Canada, Turkey, the Slavic states not including Russia, could still be major partners with Europe.

I believe the main difference between the liberal internationalist model when it comes to foreign policy and national security and the neoconservative model and the libertarian-socialist model, comes to use of force.

Neoconservatives, base their foreign policy and national security policy almost if not squarely on the use of force. They believe you always have to sound tough and be able to back up your verbal toughness. That there’s nothing that America can’t do by itself when it comes to the military. That money is no object even debt and deficits when it comes to national security. You spend whatever it takes at all costs and then perhaps figure out how to pay for that spending down the road.

Then you move over to the libertarian-socialist model when it comes to foreign policy and national security. Combine former U.S. Representative’s Ron Paul with Dennis Kucinich, they were actually friends in Congress and worked with each other on these issues. You combine Libertarians with Social Democrats, or Socialists and you have a libertarian-socialist dovish isolationist foreign policy. Where they believe America could do well by cutting our national defense by 2/3 if not more. Libertarians, would use that money to get rid of the income tax. Socialists, would use that money to bring the Scandinavian welfare state to America. And we wouldn’t even work with our allies when there’s horrible human rights crisis’s around the world. Other than maybe supplying humanitarian aid to certain countries.

What the Liberal-Internationalist says and I’m one and so was Jack Kennedy, my political hero and a lot of other Liberal Democrats were and are, is that you have to be strong both at home and abroad. But that your partners have to play their part as well. They either pay you for their defense, or they invest their own resources to defend themselves. So yes, pull all of our Americans troops and bases out of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. Or have them pay us for their defense. But you don’t act just because you’re strong enough to act. You act when your national security is at stake. When human rights are being abused like a lot of people being murdered. When you can play a positive difference. And you work with your allies when the situations come up. The differences between Smart Power, which is what liberal internationalism is. Versus shoot first and ask questions later. The neoconservative model. And No Power, the dovish isolationist model.

Posted in Gary Johnson | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: ‘Your Right to Die Isn’t Enough’

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Erik Schneider
Terminal Patient

Source: The New Republic– Dying senior citizen

Source: The New Republic

Euthanasia, is a tough issue for me. We’re not just talking about suicide here, but someone getting legal help from not just someone else to kill them, but getting that help from someone whose sworn to protect life. And do whatever they can to save people who are hurt. And in many cases where their life is at risk and they can die if they don’t get the proper medical treatment.

But I’ve never said that I believe in an absolute Right to Life. Besides, my definition to Right to Life, is a bit different from lets say a devout Catholic, or Evangelical. My Right to Life is about the individual. That they’re responsible for the management of their own life and held accountable for good and bad exactly how they live their life and the impact that they make on others. My Right to Life, or belief in it, is conditional, to be blunt about it. That once a person becomes a person, meaning they’re born, they’re responsible for their own life and can live their own live anyway they choose. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

And because of this as a Liberal, I can say, you what this is your life. How you decide to live is up to you and you’re going to be held accountable for exactly how you live for good, bad an in between. Which is why I can say as a Liberal that I believe physician assisted suicide, should be an option for people who are terminally ill. Or in such bad shape that it’s just not that they’ll never recover, but they’ll be in some type of horrible pain regardless of the amount of medication that they have access for the rest of their lives. But I’m a Liberal, not a Libertarian, or an Anarchist. And I believe there also needs to be rules in place for exactly how physician assisted suicide could be carried out. To protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

One, a patient who is in real bad shape physically and suffering a lot, or not, whether they’ve essentially been given a death sentence from their doctor, or not, would need a doctor’s written consent to be put to death. Doctors shouldn’t be forced to deliver this procedure, especially if they’re against it.

Two, someone who is contemplating physician assisted suicide, needs to either facing a death sentence. Meaning they’ve been told they only have a certain amount of time to live and they’ll be in pain for the rest of their life. Or, they’re such in bad shape that they could theoretically live a natural life in years, but will be in serious pain for the rest of their life.

Three, the patient is in solid mental health and think clearly and knows exactly what they’re doing. That they’re in the best mental health that they possibly can be. So they don’t make a horrible mistake that they’ll never recover from.

Four, they’re 21, or over. Minors, should not only be able to make this decision for themselves, but not even be able to make this decision with parental consent.

Five, that the patient informs their family that they’ve decided to end their life. So they know what’s going on here with their relative. Even if they are not physically and emotionally close with that person.

Again, physician assisted suicide, should be a tough issue for anyone whose either on the fence on it, or thinks it should be an option for people. Because we are talking about ending the life of someone who hasn’t even been accused of hurting an innocent person. But for me at least as a Liberal, the Right to Life belongs to the individual. And they have that right until they lose it. And for me that even includes the right to take that life under the conditions that I’ve laid out.
Intelligence Square Debates: Legalize Assisted Suicide

Posted in Originals, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Prakash RP: ‘A Defence of Communism’

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Frederick Engels & Karl Marx

Source: Dragon Productions Theater– Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

“I think I’m one of those few in today’s world who have got a clear knowledge of what communism is and believe in the theory of communism. I also think I’m one of those few avowed communists who are true to the communist values and principles. Nevertheless, I must in this regard make it clear to the world that none should mistake me for Leninists, Stalinists, or Maoists. In fact, I do not recognise Lenin, Stalin, Mao or any of their followers as communist. Why I refuse to recognise them as communist and who I recognise as true communists are not the subject matter of this discourse. I should like to throw light on these issues in some other essay…

Source:Prakash RP

Communism, at least in how its been practiced up until the last thirty-years, or so with the Soviet Union collapsing and the People’s Republic of China moving to a form of state capitalism and the same thing with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba, has been a government philosophy built around a big centralized state. That the central state, is the country and owns the country and everyone inside of the country are essentially subjects of the central state. With the central state being responsible for the welfare of the people and taking care of the people. While at the same time preserving the communist state. Even if that means locking people up and killing them if they are seen as threats to the communist regime.

Now, if this if the definition of communism, then I believe only a Communist, or Marxist could defend that. But let’s say I’m wrong about what communism is (and I don’t consider myself to be an expert on communism) and that it really is something a lot more positive than that and a communist state, is not what we’ve seen North Korea collapse into, (keep in mind, the word communist comes from community) then what is it?

If communism is really just about community and protecting the collective (and not necessarily the government) and making sure everyone is taken care of and doesn’t have to go without, then how is communism different from democratic socialism or social democracy? And how is a true Communist, different from a Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat? Those are the questions that people who call themselves true Communists, have never even tried to answer before.

But if my second definition of communism is correct and the first one is wrong, (and I’ll take that bet) then what makes communism better, or different from socialism?

If the difference between a Communist and Socialist, that the Socialist tends to be more democratically oriented? That they believe in multi-party systems and elections? A list of both welfare and individual rights and that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs? That the Communist, believes in the welfare of their people and that everyone should be taken care of. But is so in love with themselves and their political system, that they believe they are entitled to absolute power and don’t deserve to have any opposition whatsoever?

If I’m wrong about the differences between a Socialist (and I mean Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat) and a Marxist like Fidel Castro, or someone like that and that Communists, do believe in at least a certain level of both personal and economic autonomy, which means freedom at least in America, then why do you need both socialism and communism, if they’re the same thing?

I welcome anyone who actually understands communism to answer these questions  on this piece. My guess is they aren’t the same thing. That there are good reasons to be a Socialist, because again Socialists believe in at least a certain level of democracy and freedom. Both personal and economic freedom. As we see with Bernie Sanders and social democracies in Europe.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment