Real Time With Bill Maher: On U.K. Conservatives

Source:Matthew Ives- Bill Maher-

Source:The New Democrat

The main difference between a British Conservative and an American lets's classical Conservative, for any of you on the Right who is offended by the word real, is that the British Conservative looks like an FDR Progressive. They are conservative really only in the sense that they are to the Right of the British Socialists in the Labour Party and other social democratic parties in the United Kingdom. The classical Conservative in America, is exactly that and what I would call a yes a real Conservative. Not someone who wants big government out of the economy so they can stick it into Americans personal lives and have government tell us how to live what they would call a moral life.

I think a better comparison or debate would be the differences between a classical Conservative and an Neoconservative or in America Christian-Conservative. The Conservative Libertarian vs. the Neoconservative who questions personal freedom and should Americans have personal freedom in a free society or not. Which is a dumb question, I mean seriously what good is a free society and freedom in general without personal freedom. Things like the Right to Free Assembly, Free Speech, Right to Privacy, property rights, the ability for people to make their own financial and personal decisions.

So here are some of the differences between a classical Conservative, people who I respect, but certainly don't agree with on everything and Neoconservatives who, well, lets just say they have a constitutional right to their beliefs and values as well.

The classical Conservative wants big government out of our wallets and bedrooms. As I suggested earlier, the Neoconservative wants big government out of our wallets at least to a certain extent, but as long as we are spending our money the way they approve of. Once we start spending money on things they disapprove of, like movies and music they see as immoral, than they stick big government into our wallets and pockets and try to punish us for what we do with our personal lives.

The classical Conservative believes in Freedom of Religion. The Neoconservative believes in Freedom of Religion for Protestants and perhaps other Christians. But that "Islam is not a real religion, but a political philosophy and therefore doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights. And that Muslims if they are from another country, should be sent home or locked up, because they are Un-American".

The classical Conservative believes in the Right to Privacy. Again goes to getting big government out of our wallets and homes. The Neoconservative doesn't and sees the Right to Privacy as a threat to our national security and preaches security and morality over liberty.

I could go on, but hopefully you have better things to do. I know I sure do and besides would like to save the rest of my material for future posts. But Conservatives in America, again real or classical depending on your sensitivity, are Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians. Conservatives in Britain are really only conservative in comparison with Socialists over there. The real debate is not between the Tea Party and British Conservatives. The real debate is between Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians in America, vs. Neoconservatives and the Christian-Right.
Source:Matthew Ives

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Senator Bernie Sanders Sneers at Americans For Not Demanding European Style Social Benefits'

Source:The New Democrat 

What is lost in this whole America vs. Europe socialism vs. what I call real liberalism and others call classical liberalism debate, is the economics and economies of both. Well in America's case at least a country, Europe together and united and I'm talking about the European Union west of the slavic states, especially Russia would be a monster economy and superstate. But take Germany out of the picture, and we are talking about mid-size to fairly big economies in developed countries. Compared with America which is a superstate and super sized economy and the only superpower in the world.

You want America to spend more on social insurance and have that Scandinavian or Anglo socialist sized welfare state and that means spending a lot less on national defense, as far as the American military budget. And that means pulling troops and resources out of Europe and sending them home. And telling those socialist states that are supposed to be so rich while America is so poor, "hey buddy, get off your fat lazy asses and go defend yourselves! Because America is pulling out of you socialist utopias and going home to try to build their own".

Not! Wrong! Try, try, try again, not going to happen. We pull out of Europe and Europe will freak out over the nightmarish thought of, "of no! We'll actually have to defend ourselves and learn how to shoot guns and fly planes and drive tanks! Hell we might even have to defend ourselves and have real militaries! The cruelty of it all! Those Americans are meanies!" Or perhaps something stronger and in a different language or in several different languages. I would love for America to pull out of Europe and go home to rebuild America. Not create that King Kong size welfare state, but rebuild our collapsing infrastructure and public schools.

America can't defend the world, we no longer can afford to do that or have to do that since we are the only superpower in the world and you have other large developed countries like Europe as a single entity and Japan that can afford to defend themselves. Let alone create a socialist sized superstate where personal responsibility and initiative is essentially outlawed. Because big Uncle Sammy is now in charge of at least our economic lives if not personal lives as well. If you were to include the nanny state and what people on the New Left want to do about the media. What they call democratize, is really about nationalization and state control of the media.

America a liberal democracy full of initiative and individualism and creates new things and freedom for different people everyday. Europe a socialist collectivist society where those values are considered selfish and materialistic. And what Europe is now learning with their debt and deficit situations and with so many states either in recession or barely growing, like France is that they can't afford to be as socialist as they want to be as well. And they are scaling back what their central government's do for their people and perhaps scaring the hell out of them by having them actually, now get this, take responsibility for their own lives and welfare. A hellish thought for a lot of Europeans.

RM: The Crowded Sky (1960)

Source:RM- Holy scene from Airplane! Batman!

Source:The New Democrat 

If you are familiar with the disasters movies of the 1970s, Airport, Airport 1975, Airport 1977, Airport 1979 with the concord and I would add Airplane! 1980 in with that because that is about what the 1970s was about, I think you'll find where the inspiration for all of those movies came from. Those movies all follow The Crowded Sky that came out in 1960. Like the rest of those movies, The Crowded Sky features a lot of talented, intelligent, imperfect people who are all going through personal issues that affect in their jobs in the movie that comes out and plays a big part in the movie.

Like the disaster movies that follow, The Crowded Sky is a pretty funny movie with a lot of funny people and characters in it. It also has a lot of soap opera in it with people going through relationship issues, feelings of insecurity, family issues with their kids, like the captain of the commercial plane not getting along with his son. People on the commercial plane not falling in love, but getting romantically involve with each other. The navigator of the commercial plane who is a motormouth and can't shut up about how bad his wife is. The captain and first officer hating each other's guts.

The Crowded Sky is essentially a very funny soap opera for about the first hour and twenty-minutes or so, before the two planes collide in the air. But they collide in the air because the people on the ground who are supposed to be doing air traffic control, are overworked and not paying attention to the two planes until it is too late. A Navy jet and the commercial airliner. This is a very funny and entertaining movie with a very skilled pilot having to make up for his big mistake, which was flying the plane too high. Which is why he collided with the Navy jet.
Source:RM

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: 'The Mistake of Unilateral Divorce'

Source:Michael Jaques- Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. 

Source:The New Democrat

Again what I call the Traditional Values Coalition like to talk about the dangers of big government when it comes to taxes and the economy in general. While at the same time on perhaps even on the same hand like to talk about benefits of big government by sticking into the personal lives of married couples and telling people when they can end their marriages or not. And then they say that so-called "no fault divorce is bad because it means that more women will enter the workforce. And as a result more people will be working and paying taxes". Perhaps funding their own big government policies.

You start down the road of big government telling people when they can get divorced or even married and then you build a new road and deciding when romantic couples who perhaps aren't married yet, can decide to move in with each other. Or when they can have kids, perhaps even make love. Forcing free Americans by law to live up to their marriage vows and making adultery illegal. Perhaps a national curfew law and telling Americans when they need to be home at night.

If you want to have a free society, you don't create that by telling people who you want to be free how to live their own lives. Either from an economic and yes personal perspective. Economic freedom without personal freedom is not freedom. It is half the pie and one without the other is like burger without cheese or bread, you would be missing big chunk by at least not having the bread. You need both for it to be whole and real and you don't create freedom by having government decide how adults should live their own lives.
.Source:Michael Jacques

Chris Myers: Charles Barkley Interview

Source:The New Democrat

Now we are talking about Charles Barkley the basketball analyst, which I think he does a great job as and even one of the best NBA analysts in the business right now. And we are also seeing Charles Barkley the political and social commentator. We already saw Charles Barkley the great basketball player and again I see him as one of the top 5-10 players of all-time in the history of the NBA. But now at fifty-years old, but he's been what he is now since he's left the NBA as a player. He is now a professional commentator on things more than just basketball and the NBA.

If Charles Barkley doesn't have a column or blog, I wish he would start one. Which is what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has already one with Time. Because I don't agree with him on everything, but he makes a good intelligent case about everything that he says and believes. Which is all you ask from a commentator in life. You want them to make a good interesting case for why they believe about what they are talking about. You can't expect to agree with everything that they say. Just for them to make a good interesting case for why they believe what they believe about what they are talking about.

NBA-TV: Charles Barkley, Sir Charles at 50

Source:The New Democrat

Charles Barkley can't be completely written about in just a few posts. The man is now fifty-years old and you spend weeks writing articles and spend years writing books and producing films and doing interviews about the man and still not cover everything. And all of this could be said when the man finished his playing career fifteen years ago. There's just so much about him and not just his playing career where he might be one of the top ten players of in NBA history. Certainly one of the top ten forwards and perhaps the greatest player who has ever played power forward in the NBA.

But is doesn't end there with Chuck just as a basketball player. Here's a man who stands 6'4-6'5 who on the street and any other profession would be a very tall man. If he played point guard in basketball he would be a tall basketball player. If he played shooting guard he would've had the right height. Chuck was short for a small forward, let alone power forward and he is the greatest height for height if not the greatest rebounder of all-time. A man who is 6'4 going up against guys who are 6'8-6'10 every night and yet no power forward in the NBA could box the man out. At least not on a regular basis.

And this is just about part of Chuck's career as a basketball player. I think he is the greatest player to ever play power forward. Not the greatest power forward, I would rather take Karl Malone and Tim Duncan over him. But no other full-time power forward has had the skills and great at so many different aspects of basketball than Charles Barkley who has played power forward. And that includes Larry Bird who played perhaps played as much power forward as the small forward position in the NBA.

But this again is just part of one of Charles Barkley's career as a basketball player and an aspect of his life. Other posts should and have been written about different aspects of his career. Like why the Philadelphia 76ers didn't win more with him, when they should've remained an NBA Finals contender for the rest of the 1980s and into the 1990s. But they weren't run very well post Julius Erving and Bill Cunningham and John Nash. And you can go into Chuck as the NBA analyst, the cultural analyst and the comedian. But those are for future posts.

ESPN: SportsCentury Karl Malone

Source:The New Democrat

I'm stuck between Karl Malone and Tim Duncan as far as who is the best power forward of all-time. I think Duncan is the better all around player than The Mailman, but that is a little different than who is the better power forward. Players are exactly that and positions are that as well and besides Duncan is really a center/power forward or vice-versa, he's played a lot of both positions throughout his career. But The Mailman is certainly the best power forward of the 1990s and perhaps the 1980s as well.

When you think of the prototypical power forward, the classic power forward, the total package as a power forward and then some, Karl Malone is exactly that. When you are talking about a man who was 6'9 255-260 pounds, with the quickness and shooting ability of a power forward and the physical strength of a center. He would've dominated at either position, but not being much of a shot blocker, better suited at playing the big forward, than playing center, at least playing center full-time. He was The Mailman because he delivered basically all of the time for the, I still feel strange saying this, but the Utah Jazz.

Malone put the Jazz on his back and carried that team his entire career. He was the only great and big scorer on his team almost his entire career. The only great rebounder and perhaps even good rebounder on his team throughout his career and the only great big man for the Salt Lake Jazz as I prefer to call them that the Jazz have ever had. And yet they were a title contender throughout the 1990s. And John Stocton was a big part of that as far as quarterbacking the Jazz being the great point guard that he was. But if Karl has a bad night offensively and they are playing a good team, the Jazz probably lose.

To go back to my point about the prototypical power forward, The Mailman was exactly that. He and Elvin Hayes might be the top two pure power forwards of all-time. Charles Barkley was more of a hybrid forward, someone with great skills at both the power forward and small forward. And I believe a better all around player than Karl and perhaps the best height for height rebounder of all-time at around 6'5. But Karl was exactly what you want from your power forward and then some. Tall, big, strong, quick, great inside scorer, great rebounder and an excellent defender and passer in the post.

Karl Malone was called The Mailman, because he was exactly that. He delivered for the Jazz time and time again and took them as far as he could almost by himself in the 1980s and 1990s. And perhaps just a few plays away from winning at least one NBA Finals in the late 1990s against the Chicago Bulls. Had the Jazz had a great swingman, small forward or shooting guard or good if not all-star caliber center to go with Malone and Stocton, maybe they would've won two NBA Finals in the late 1990s, instead of none. But they got very far with The Mailman delivering as much as he could.