CBC: Front Page Challenge: Malcolm X in 1965

Source:The New Democrat

Malcolm X’s message was about self-reliance and self-defense for the African-American community. Not trying to destroy any other community in the United States. Which is something that the right-wing especially the far-right does not understand that prefers to view Malcolm X as a racist. At least towards Caucasians and a criminal looking to destroy the United States. What Malcolm X believed instead was empowering an entire community to be able to live in freedom. Wherever they wanted to live and be able to take care of themselves instead. And not have to be dependent on government or anyone else for their well-being. Conservatives should like Malcolm X actually because of his beliefs in self-reliance and education, freedom for people to be able to make their own decisions. And not have to be dependent on government for their economic survival.

Reason Magazine: Jacob Sullum: Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Major Sentencing Reforms

Source:The New Democrat

I agree that this bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t go far enough. I would decriminalize cocaine, heroin and meth. Not legalize them which is different, but my drug policy would be that if adults twenty-one and over are caught in possession of cocaine, heroin or meth, those drugs would immediately be stripped away from them. And they would pay a fine upon conviction based on how much the illegal narcotics are worth. And if they are caught selling these narcotics or smuggling them into the United States or producing them themselves to anyone, they would be arrested along with stripped of those narcotics. But at worst looking at jail time. Unless they are convicted of smuggling or producing narcotics in America. Or selling or giving them to minors.

What the Senate bill does instead is reduce the prison and jail time for people caught with these drugs. But they still are in prison and that is still the biggest problem with failed so-called War on Drugs. Is that it punishes people for what they do to themselves. And you could say sure if you are selling these narcotics to other people, you are hurting them as well. The problem with that is those people had a choice to purchase or not to purchase narcotics and then use them or not. So we are really at the core talking about punishing people for what they do to themselves instead.

The paternalists on the Right and Left will say that liberty can’t be allowing people to live their own lives, even if that means doing things that may be dangerous to themselves. Well one problem with that and there more problems with that, is the result of attempting to protect people from themselves for the betterment of society, is you end up hurting society because now you fill up your prisons with people are by in large are good people. And even productive people before prison or could’ve been very productive people before prison. But now they are in prison and would leave prison with criminal felony records. Making it very difficult for them to get a good job on the outside because of their felony conviction.

So the Senate bill is a very good start and I hope it passes in the Senate even if it is not improved. Good luck with the Neo-Con drug warriors in the House though. But it is just a first step and going further we need to get non-violent inmates who are not in prison for hurting anyone else. Physically, economically or anything else out of prison and either in drug rehab or halfway houses. And allow for them to move on with their lives and be productive citizens.

PBS NewsHour: U.S Representative Charles Rangel Debate Dr. Walter Williams on The Minimum Wage

Source:The New Democrat

Sounds to me that whatever spin that Common Sense Capitalism wants to give it, that Representative Rangel was arguing not only in favor of the minimum wage, but empowering those workers to be able to get additional skills so they wouldn’t have to work for the minimum wage. And be able to get better jobs and be able to support themselves. With Dr. Williams arguing and using traditional spin of the Right that the minimum wage kills jobs and costs others jobs even when some others are getting jobs.Representative Rangel was arguing for economic empowerment for low-income low-skilled workers. So they wouldn’t have to work for the minimum wage long-term. While Dr. Williams was making the so-called free market argument when it comes to employee compensation. “Let the free market decide”. When in fact the so-called free market wouldn’t decide that. Employers who just happen to be part of the market, would decide what wages should be for everyone including themselves.

Jason Kuznicki: Modern Liberalism & The Paternalism of Things

Source:The New Democrat

Modern Liberalism and the Paternalism of Things is the perfect way to describe what is called modern liberalism. Which is a bogus term because there’s only one liberalism and you are either a Liberal or not. Or perhaps have some liberal positions but not a full-time Liberal. But there really isn’t classical liberalism or modern liberalism. I use the term classical liberalism as a way to compare liberalism with a more state form of liberalism. That really isn’t liberalism, but a state form of leftist collectivism or socialism. That tends to get labeled as liberalism. But what is called modern liberalism is a state form of paternalism.

What is called Modern liberalism that I call collectivism is a state form of paternalism. That puts its faith in the state through the voting process to decide what is best for everyone, the society. Instead of letting people decide these things for themselves and being able to manage and govern their own lives. Collectivists tend to see freedom as a dangerous because they tend to see it as the freedom to make mistakes. Instead of good decisions and that it needs to be regulated to the point that people can be protected from making too many bad decisions with their lives that the society has to pay for.

Liberalism in its classic and modern form is not about the state and that society needs to decide for everyone what is best for each individual in how they should live their own lives. But about the individual and that an educated public is much more qualified to make their own decisions. Because they have the knowledge to do so and when you also have an educated public you have the best and most productive society as possible. Allowing for an encouraging everyone to be as successful as possible.

Los Angeles Times: A New Way to Attack Social Programs

Source:The New Democrat

Here’s an area where the public sector can work with the private sector and it is in the area of self-improvement for convicted inmates. So they can build up their lives and have a real shot at succeeding on the outside making a good living legally. And never needing to go back to jail or prison. It is pretty clear that locking up prison inmates and simply just keeping them there until their sentence is over, or just simply releasing them on the outside expecting to fit back into civilized society on their own, does not work. And that we need a new approach and this is where a public/private partnership could work.

If you want to talk about what happens to ex-inmates once they get out of prison as far as empowering them to build a successful life for themselves, we should say that all ex-inmates upon release from prison would then have to serve at a halfway house at their expense. Which would be like an apartment building or hotel for ex-offenders where they would stay and get help finding a job. And whatever rehabilitation service they may need as well so they can function successfully in society. Where they would have an outside job while still staying at the halfway house. Plus having a job inside the halfway house to help keep the place running.

The way this would work would be pretty simple. A prison releases inmates and then finds a halfway house for those inmates based on applications these places send to prisons. And then they get rewarded with the contracts to manage these ex-inmates in their houses. Until they are completely ready to be independent and live completely on their own. And the beauty of this approach is that the ex-inmates would pay for these services themselves. With money they get paid from their jobs outside of these homes.

TruthOut: Joseph Natoli: Dark Affinities: Liberal & Neoliberal

Source:The New Democrat

You know I could write a blog arguing that these so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ of today who are supposed to be the Liberals of today and represent today’s liberalism are the ‘Neoliberals’. Because they do not represent liberalism at least as it was founded or liberalism of today. Liberalism is not about collectivism and having a superstate with its central planners making the decisions for the people or having the so-called popular will getting to decide what is best for everyone.

With this grand superstate getting to rule over the minority when it comes to decide how everyone should be able to get to live. But if you take ‘Modern Liberals’ seriously meaning they must be right about these things, you would get the idea that liberalism is about big central government and that the society as a whole should decide what is best for everyone instead of the people being able to make these decisions for themselves.

I really only need one example to show why so-called ‘modern liberalism’ is not liberalism at all, Liberals are taught to at least be skeptical about the establishment. That just because the majority says so, doesn’t always mean they are correct. Especially when it comes to personal-decision-making whether it is personal or economic. That the people tend to know what is best for them. Instead of some centralized authority that many times is far way trying to make these key decisions for the people instead. That for a developed society to succeed, you need an educated public so they can mange their own lives. Instead of one centralized authority trying to make these decisions for everyone as a whole.

If you are what is called a ‘Modern Liberal’ you are all about the state and superstate. That society as a whole meaning big government is better qualified to make these key decisions for everyone. Because they can collect all of this data and be able to decide what is best for everyone. Trying to manage the lives of people they do not even know. Sounds like a Communist society. But this is a far-left democratic form of collectivism. And these Collectivists can simply be voted out of office.

Liberals vs. the Collectivists is really about who get’s to decide and have the power over the people’s lives. The people themselves or government trying to make these key economic and personal decisions for the people instead. Should the people get to decide what they can read and what news organizations to follow. Or big government and can the people decide whether they should smoke or drink or not, or big government. And one final example should the people get to decide where they get their health care and who they pay for it. Or big government. And where you are when it comes to these key issues, determines whether you are a Liberal or a Collectivist when it comes to leftist politics.

USFL Forever: USFL 1983-Week 6-Oakland Invaders @ Boston Breakers: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat.  

A crowd of less than eight-thousand at a major league pro football game. I guess the USFL was slow to catch on Boston which is too bad. Because the USFL had very good teams in it and a lot of NFL caliber players. Of course the weather looked horrible for this game. Which isn’t uncommon in Boston in early spring. But the Breakers were one of the USFL franchises that relocated and ended up in Portland in 1984 or 85. Boston was one of the mistakes if the USFL. Their idea that the USFL could take on the NFL in their own markets was one of their fatal errors. Oakland was one of their good moves, because Oakland is crazy for major league pro football. And the Raiders had just moved to Los Angeles in 1982. So the USFL going to Oakland was perfect timing on their part.