Slate Magazine: Tanner Colby: How The Left’s Embrace of Busing Hurt The Cause of Integration

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

As a Liberal I believe in things like equal opportunity, Equal Justice Under the Law, wrote a blog about that yesterday. Equal Protection Under Law all of these great liberal values that I believe puts me in a solid majority in America and Equal Protection Under Law covers things like not denying people things simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion and I would add sexuality to that as well. And as good as integration is and the benefits of America when we are able to work together as a country because it combines the strengths of the entire country and uses all of those strengths together, these things only work together when they are voluntary.

We can write all the laws that protect our constitutional rights and to make sure they are all enforced equally for all Americans. And I support those things, but we can’t force people to socialize with each other. To live with each other and even to work with each other or go to school with each other. What we can do is teach people especially kids that none of us are better because of our race or ethnicity, or gender. And teach people not to hate or to love or to judge people especially people from different backgrounds because of these factors. But we can’t force people to live, work and socialize with each other either.

Integration by law meaning that it is legal is great because it means we can’t be denied things simply because of our heritage and how we were born. That instead we are judged by our personal and professional qualifications, but not because of how we were born. But when you try to force people to go to school or to work or to socialize or to live with each other, you are taking people’s freedom to make the most personal of decisions away from them. And are now forcing integration on to people instead of making it an option for them.

Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation, because instead of forcing people to be separate because of their race, you are now forcing people to be integrated because of their race. And taking the power and choice out of the people’s hand and now forcing it on them. If you treat people to be tolerant and love people for being people, then most likely they’ll decide to integrate with others as they meet them. Because they’ll learn they have things in common with other people and make that decision for themselves.

Posted in Slate Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Richard Eskow: The Populist Moment

Posted on February 4, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

It is hard to describe America from an ideological standpoint as a whole. Because we are such a huge and vast country and then you throw in all of our political diversity. We are a country by American standards that goes from Communists, Marxists Socialists, Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats on the Far-Left, to Neo-Confederates and Christian Theocrats on the Far-Right. With Liberals on the Center-Left and Conservatives on the Center-Right. But with also Progressives on the Center-Left and Conservative Libertarians on the Center-Right. so we have a lot of political diversity in this country.

I believe the best way to judge America politically in general if you want to do that would be to go to the issues and where America stands on them. And go issue by issue, category by category to economic policy, social policy, national security and foreign policy. The two easiest ones to judge would be economic and social policy things that Americans think about all the time. Because it affects our everyday lives all the time. And even though I’m a Liberal I’m going to paraphrase Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater. To say that Americans tend to want big government out of their wallets and living rooms, as well as bedrooms, as well as boardrooms and classrooms.

America tends to be an anti-big government country except for some very Socialist areas in the Northeast and Northwest and the Bible Belt. But America tends to like that old Barry Goldwater phrase about big government. And tend to want government out of their economic and personal lives. Instead of having government trying to run their lives for them. Which is basically the definition of big government. Government trying to do too much for the people and run their lives for them.

I’m not saying America is anti-government or pro-government, but anti-big government. We like our schools and roads, bridges, infrastructure in general. As well as paying to help people who are down on the luck and need a handout as well as help getting up. And we are even willing to pay for those things as well as aid other countries who need that aid as well. But we don’t want government trying to make decisions for us that we can for ourselves. Meaning trying to run our lives for us.

Base on this I would describe America as a classically liberal country and not Libertarian. Which is different and if more Americans actually understood what a Liberal is and what liberalism is, more Americans would be self-described as Liberals. Because most of us want good schools and infrastructure in general and will pay those things because of what we get in return for them. But we don’t want taxes so high to pay for government to take care of us. Or to have government try to make our personal decisions for us either.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thom Hartmann: Video: Caller: Taxation is Not The Solution To The Sugar Problem!

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Derik Schneider

.
The New Democrat

I agree that we should as a society be able to hold people accountable for their own bad decisions. Whether it comes to diet or anything else instead of allowing those people to pass those costs onto society as a whole. Because it us unfair for people who make good decisions in life eat and drink well, properly exercise on a regular basis, to then get stuck with the bad decisions of people who do not make good lifestyle decisions.

Where I differ with Thom Hartmann comes to why I would tax these unhealthy products. We know prohibition doesn’t work and trying to outlaw junk food and soft drinks salt and sugar would be just as costly as trying to outlaw marijuana and other illegal narcotics. So we don’t want to go down that road of arresting and locking people up for making unhealthy decisions with their own lives. Which means personal freedom and responsibility are the alternatives. You want to live unhealthy fine, but you and you alone will pay the costs of those bad decisions and no one else.

Well actually the companies who make these products would pay those costs as well. And then what you do with the money is to give it to people who live healthy. By making healthy behavior cheaper so everyone could afford to eat and drink healthy. Workout and so-forth and you reimburse hospitals who have high bills because of all the uncompensated health care. They have to give because of people using their emergency rooms.

Posted in The New Democrat, Thom Hartmann | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Thinker: Trevor Thomas: ‘Bill Maher, High Priest’

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

american thinker_ daniel payne - Google SearchSource:American Thinker– might what to change the name of their publication, based on the ideas that they produce.

Source:The New Democrat

“Bill Maher is upset. In his pagan mind, now that a significant number of Americans are comfortable with same-sex marriage and legalized marijuana, he recently concluded, “it’s time we knocked over the next social domino, Puritanism.”

So, according to Maher, what exactly is “Puritanism?” It seems that anyone or anything that would stand in the way of the sexual desires of any consenting adult would be guilty of Puritanism. For example, France has been in the headlines recently because “the boring guy they elected president last year turns out not to be so boring” (Maher’s words).

It turns out that President François Hollande never married the mother of his four children. He broke up with her a few years ago for a younger woman. As happens so often (amazing that so many first-time “mistresses” don’t figure this out-because if a man will leave the mother of his children, why wouldn’t he leave the next woman) in these matters, the younger woman was then dumped for an actress.

So what? concludes Maher, “the French just shrug and go back to eating snails.” Maher wonders why America can’t be more like France as he then gets to the point of his rant. He points out that newly elected Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, was shamed into firing Lis Smith, who was in line to become de Blasio’s communications director.

Maher, oblivious to his moral ignorance and hypocrisy, asks, “Was it that she lied on her résumé? Or accepted gifts from a lobbyist? Or injected Alex Rodriguez with steroids? Nope. It’s that she’s dating Eliot Spitzer, America’s evilest, horniest man.” Evidently in Maher’s perverted world, lying on a résumé, illegal gifts from lobbyists, and steroid use are bad things; but abandoning the mother of your children, whoring around with whatever is your current fancy, same-sex marriage, pot use, and the like are okay.”

From American Thinker

“Bill Maher morals and values”

Morals and valuesSource:Fantasy Coach– Real Time With Bill Maher in 2009.

From Fantasy Coach

So according to Trevor Thomas, it’s immoral for someone in France to raise their own kids, with the woman he didn’t marry, but happens to be the mother of his kids, as well as for gay people to consensually marry each other, and for consenting adults to smoke pot. But if you beat the hell out of a gay person, simply because that person is gay, or violently crash a gay wedding, you are a good, decent, moral person, who also loves Jesus. I’m not putting words in Trevor Thomas’s mouth, but that’s what this sounds like.

This subject is the perfect example of why we still need the Fourth Amendment our Right to Privacy in America. Because imagine if the Religious-Right or the Far-Right in general was in charge in the United States and we didn’t have the Right to Privacy and how much of their big government agenda they would be able to get through. And being able to outlaw any type of behavior even among consenting adults that isn’t hurting anyone, without the United States Constitution to stop them.

Morality, it get’s to what is your position of morality. For me, it is about good behavior and how we treat each other. And for me moral behavior would be to treat people the way you want to be treated.

Most of us are good people so we would treat people the way we want them to treat us. Unless we simply do not like them and could care less what they think of us or how they would treat us in response. But even with people like that, we generally do not intentionally hurt people especially if we have better things to do. And are good productive people who aren’t going to be worried about what some jerk is doing.

The liberal tradition of morality is about how we treat each other as people. But even as kids we tend to be raised regardless of our parents ideology to treat people well the way we would want to be treated. And we tend to learn these things as kids and that is how we are able to make friends and work with other people. Because we treat people well and in a moral way and we do not hurt people intentionally. Especially if they are innocent people.

But if you are on the Religious-Right or the Far-Right in general, morality is not just about how we treat each other, but how we live our own lives as individuals. How we live individually and even if we aren’t hurting anyone, even ourselves we could be viewed by the Far-Right as either immoral or involved in immoral behavior when it comes to activities they disapprove. Homosexuality, adultery, gambling, drinking, smoking, using illegal drugs, pornography, are just some of the examples of activities that the Far-Right would like to outlaw in the United States. Because they see these things as immoral.

If you are a Liberal, you believe that government should mind their own damn business. And allow the people to mind their business. Instead of government getting in the way and telling free adults how they should live their own lives.

But for the Religious-Right, there is no such thing as individual behavior at least as it relates to personal issues and that all of these things are the public’s business (meaning government’s) in order to have a moral code that protects everyone even from themselves.

Posted in American Thinker, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Piers Morgan Tonight: Ann Coulter Confronts Piers Morgan on Guns

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Ann Coulter actually make a good point about the mentally ill in America and their access to guns. Which is why we need to fully fund mental health care in America both in and out of institutions. And no longer release mental patients because of costs because now we are putting the resources in to fund mental health care in this country. And there are a variety of ways that we can do this. Requiring health insurers both private and public to cover mental health care would be one of them. And there will be a future post on this blog about how exactly could we fund mental health care in this country.

The mental health care may the only issue I agree with Ann Coulter on. And since I have so much disrespect for her and basically see here a hate-monger for the far-right, I may have to rethink my position on this. But where Ann goes back to Crazyland and visits her good friend Michelle Bachmann is that she’s not willing to do anything that would actually keep the mentally disabled for whatever reasons from getting access to firearms in the United States.

There are big government policies to cutting gun violence. Basically trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment that democratic socialist talk show how and writer Thom Hartmann suggested a few weeks ago. Or make it so weak that it is basically worth nothing. There are no government policies on this issue which is to do nothing. And there are limited government solutions to this problem which is to prevent criminals and the mentally disabled from getting firearms. While responsible adults would still be able to get firearms as long as they are responsible with them.

What we need is a twenty-four hour background check on anyone inside of the United States purchasing a firearm. And that check would be to make sure that no one with a violent felony criminal record, someone convicted of a violent crime or violent crimes could get access to firearms. Or the mentally ill someone with a record of metal illness could get access to firearms. As well as seeing that no one who still needs to be in a mental institution is able to leave until they are ready to.

The approach I’m talking about is supported by some sixty-percent of the American public. Even people who are on the far-left who want to outlaw firearms period for private use, would take this approach over doing nothing. And only the libertarian-right and the far-right see this approach as unconstitutional, because they are absolutists on the Second Amendment. And see any gun regulations are unconstitutional even though none of our constitutional rights are absolute.

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Opinion: Noam Scheiber: Socialized Law: A Radical Solution For Inequality

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Lady Justice
The New Republic: Opinion: Noam Scheiber: Socialized Law: A Radical Solution For Inequality

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This is an issue even though I haven’t been blogging much about it in the last few years. A few posts here and there, but it is an issue that I’ve thought a lot about a Liberal who does believe in Equal Justice Under the Law even though we may never achieve that. It would sort of be like trying to wipe out poverty or racism or something. But still like a lot of issues that America deals with is an issue just because of who we are as a people and the resources that we have in this country is something we can do a lot better on especially since we are pushing the point of achieving universal health coverage in this country.

If we can get to universal health coverage in this country, universal quality education something we can achieve as well, we can get at least damn close to universal legal services in this country. Where everyone has access to quality legal representation either in criminal or civil court. No matter their economic and educational levels with something like a legal insurance system. Legal savings accounts and beefing up legal aid in this country by encouraging good qualified wealthy lawyers to work for legal aid offices. We could accomplish universal legal services in this country as well.

This is an issue I think a lot about especially as I’ve blogged about the criminal justice system and criminal justice reform and seeing all of those Americans in prison in the United States. A lot of them for illegal narcotics or other non-violent offenses. And then seeing that a lot of these convicted offenders come from low-income backgrounds and thinking would they have been in that situation had they had the resources to get the type of defense that they needed. Now a lot of these offenders are guilty and I’m not disputing that, but some of these offenders could’ve at least gotten a better and shorter sanction if they just had better access to legal services and not represented by someone whose probably overworked and just trying to get through the case.

What we have right now when it comes to legal services is basically the Medicaid of legal services. A bare bone operation that is overworked and underfunded. Not enough people working in legal aid or public defenders offices and the people who do work there are overworked and underpaid for all the work that they are doing. And we can do better than that by setting up a legal services insurance system where people could put money away tax-free. As well as legal savings accounts where can people could put money away tax free. And even expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers so they could save money for this as well.

We could also require wealthy law firms to give away free services to low-income clients and defendants. Money they could get back from their taxes and require well paid and resourced lawyers to defend low-income defendants and clients for free. Again money they could get back from taxes and have them donate some of their time to legal aid offices. So that all Americans can have access to the legal representation they need so they have the best defense, or representation that they need. And where the wealthy no longer get’s off simply because they are wealthy.

Posted in American Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New York Times: Opinion- David Brooks- The Opportunity Coalition

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Opportunity This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

I like where David Brooks went with his column today and what I like most about being a blogger, the ability to read so much in one day and then be able to blog what I think of what I read. What David Brooks called the Whig Tradition of using government to empower the less-fortunate to be able to move up the economic scale, is the New Democratic Tradition which in large part is what this blog is about. That just doesn’t go back to Bill Clinton, but take it back to Jimmy Carter or even go back to Jack Kennedy, or even if you want to go back to Wendell Willkie even though he was a Republican. But politically in this New Democratic liberal tradition of using government to expand economic freedom.

And where I also agree with Mr. Brooks is that this is the real economic agenda that President Obama should be pushing. And push it as hard as he can knowing that he probably won’t get much legislation out of this current divided Congress, or even the next Congress. No matter whose in charge of the House and Senate. But to push it to get as much as he can accomplished, but also to help mobilize the country behind the next agenda for the next president especially if we have another Democrat. And issues that President Obama could push as ex-President Obama in his foundation or whatever type of organization he’ll have post-Obama presidency.

Now to talk about the Opportunity Society. Forget about the New Deal or Great Society, City on a Shining Hill, Contract With America or Compassionate Conservatism. What the Opportunity Society acknowledges is that as great of a country that America is with all the freedom and so-forth, not enough Americans have access to that freedom the ability for one to be able to take care of themselves and their families and put money away for themselves and their kids. That for too many Americans especially on the bottom steps of the economic ladder, they live in a stagnant society without hope and the tools to move up the economic ladder.

What the Opportunity Society says is that government isn’t too big or too small. Doesn’t even really take a position on that when it comes to the economy and economic freedom. But that the resources that is had are not used in the right way and not used effectively enough so as many Americans as possible can take advantage of those tools to get themselves the skills that they need to live in economic freedom with the ability to live their own lives. From what you get from economic Conservatives is that government is too big and taxes too much. And rarely if ever gives out specifics. And what you get from let’s say Progressives is that government is too small and taxes too little. With a lot of specifics and things that Americans tend not to want to pay for.

With the Opportunity Society it is not much resources that is the issue. But how that money is spent. And sure I would like to spend more on job training for low-skilled adults. And more funding from the federal level for low-income communities when it comes to public education. And I would like more money spent on infrastructure so more communities have the tools that they need to be successful. But these things mean nothing if that money is not spent well. And what I really want to do is use these resources so the people who need it get the resources they need to get themselves a good education. So they can get themselves a good job and live in economic freedom.

Posted in Liberal Democracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

National Journal: Peter Beinart: The End of American Exceptionalism?

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

American exceptionalism is an interesting difficult thing to talk about because it is hard to define. And the fact that exceptional is by itself neither good or bad, it is just different. You could have an exceptionally bad or good football team. The positive being the good which is why American Exceptionalism might not be the right discussion or debate for America. But perhaps the way to talk about America in a positive sense would be American Greatness. Or for people who like to speak a lot about the weakness’ of America especially the far-left and Libertarian-Right, would be to talk about American Weakness.

What makes America exceptional not necessarily for bad or for good, but when used right from a positive aspect would be our individualism. Which I believe comes from our Constitution. The First and Fourth Amendments the ability for Americans to be themselves and our racial and ethnic diversity. And our cultural diversity just highlights these aspects about America. We are so much different from the rest of the world because the whole world lives here. And brings their way of life and being with them and these things makes us so much different from the rest of the world.

So again I do not believe that it is so much that America is so much better than the rest of the world. And we could debate even if we are or are we not. That makes us exceptional, but what makes us exceptional is our diversity the freedom for Americans to be Americans. Which is individuals where I believe Europeans because they are not as diverse and tend to live in countries where culturally and ethnically one group makes up most of the country, they are less individualistic. And more collectivist not just from an economic point of view, but how they live their lives as well.

Our constitutional rights and our individualism is what makes America better than anyone else. And why I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, but that alone doesn’t make a country the best place in the world. It is just that these aspects work for me and a lot of other Americans, but perhaps not others who take a traditional mostly religiously based way of what it means to be an American. Or people who want to make America more like Europe and where Americans are less individualistic. And more dependent on the state for their well-being.

Posted in Liberal Democracy, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

National Review: Lou Dobbs Tonight: John Fund, GOP Realizes Opposing ObamaCare Not Enough

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Rik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

The whole problem with the Republican Party especially the Tea Party’s critique of the Affordable Care Act that they call ObamaCare is that they’ve never had a plan of their own at least as a party. One plan that brings the whole party together. They never tried to pass a broad health care reform plan when they controlled both the White House and Congress from 2003-07. They just passed a very expensive Medicare prescription drug plan in 2003. That they borrowed seven-hundred billion dollars to pay for.

House Republicans when they were still in the minority led by John Boehner, had a substitute to the House passed health care reform plan in late 2009. But you don’t see many Republicans or anyone else speaking very highly of it now. Senate Republicans didn’t offer anything in 2009-10 as an alternative to the ACA. Either thinking they could block the ACA with just forty-one votes or hoping it would pass so they would have a campaign issue.

Right now the only plan on the table is the Affordable Care Act, because no one else has a plan. At least something that could even pass the Republican House of Representatives. Which means the only alternative would be going back to pre-2010 and back to the old system. That most of the country didn’t like because so many Americans either couldn’t afford health insurance. Or would be denied it because of a pre-existing-condition, or would lose their health insurance because they would actually need it.

If you repeal without replacing the ACA, you go back to the old system. And right now Americans who still do not like the ACA are saying that ObamaCare is still better than the old system. Which is why the politics of trying to repeal ObamaCare just doesn’t work and won’t work at least until they come up with an alternative to ObamaCare. And say, “we know you don’t like the old system or the current system. And this is what we would do instead and why it would be better.

Posted in National Review, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hill: Judd Gregg: Progressives Play With Words, Truth

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

When I think of liberalism, I look to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our Constitutional Amendments. Because that is where the core of liberalism is whether it is. Modern or classical and the reason I mention that is because classical liberalism is modern liberalism that is liberalism when it first came to America was about individual rights and freedom today and it still is. The difference being that people who are called Liberals really aren’t Liberals in many cases. The purpose of this post to explain that.

When you think of what is supposed to be called progressivism, but it certainly isn’t progressivism in the Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt or perhaps even Henry Wallace tradition of progressivism, what is supposed to pass as progressivism today in short is a form of leftist collectivism. The main core of it is that “some people simply have too much and that is not fair. And what we need to do is take from them to make sure everyone has what they need”. And of course the Federal Government will decide who needs what and can have what.

Where I agree with Senator Judd Gregg in his column in The Hill today, is that modern progressivism is really a form of socialism or modern socialism. Not Marxist socialism intended to wipe out private enterprise, but that “you need a central state big enough to make sure that no one has too much or too little that we move better or forward progress even when we are moving together. And that allowing people to move forward on their own, Some will make mistakes and other will do too well even and that is somehow unfair”.

It is not just that let’s say Modern Progressives or Collectivists, Socialists even are different from Liberals when it comes to economic policy, but social policy as well. It is not just economic freedom that is dangerous to the collectivist mind, but personal freedom as well. That the idea of prohibition that “government needs to be able to protect people from themselves in how they spend their money and even what they can do with their own bodies. And what they can put in their own bodies as well”. And how we can talk to each other with the political correctness movement. And trying to create a nice society through law even.

The main difference between the Modern Progressive or Collectivist and Liberal has to do with the Collectivist Society versus individual rights and having an Educated Society. In the Collectivist Society we would all move together as a country in one direction. With the central government leading the way to decide what is best for us. With a Liberal Educated Society, the individual would have the freedom because of their knowledge to be able to make these decisions for themselves. And that is also the difference between the far-left and center-left in America.

Posted in The Hill, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment