Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- 'In Defense Of Unpopular Speech'

Source:Liberty Pen- British Socialist columnist Christopher Hitchens, actually making a great case for free speech. Not your typical Socialist. (To put it mildly)

"Popular speech does not need Constitutional protection. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Democratic Socialist, a bit left to me on economic policy (to put it mildly) but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs, and yes, free speech. 

But Freedom of Speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that: the right to speak whether it's popular or not.

Since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. 

This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) so-called and Christian-Conservatives (but what are they conserving and they Bible are they reading) have never grasped, who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) but of course Christian-Nationalists view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film (but thats a different story) is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect: the right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. 

What this anti-Muslim movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel: "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth. It was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

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

The Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand (1979)

Source:Anarchy- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on Phil Donahue in 1979.

“Phil Donahue: I am very pleased to present a woman that a number of people who have said “Atlas Shrugged changed my life. The Fountain Head changed my life.” Here’s a woman who is read by millions around the world. She may be our most-debated philosopher. She identifies that to which she adheres as “objectivism.” We’ll talk about it. We care very much about your sharing with us, your feelings about this most-interesting lady, a warm human being who has a lot to say and comes straight at everything she says. I’m pleased to present Ayn Rand. Miss Rand.

Ayn Rand is here and it’s about time we said hello after hearing so much about you when you’re not really altogether that available to the media. I know you do a radio show and there have been other occasions, but let’s see what I can do here in trying to help the world understand, those who may not be as familiar with your work.”

From Anarchism 

“A rare public appearance by Ayn Rand in the 1970’s. She’s in her 70’s in this video and her first public appearance since husband Frank O’Connor’s death.”

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Author Ayn Rand, being interviewed by Phil Donahue in 1979.

From Steve Packard 

This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver, but came from very different sides of the political spectrum:

Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a more of a Social Democrat philosophically, but not a Communist.. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government:

Ayn, whose see government’s role as basically doing nothing more, then to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there’s only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.

The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy:

Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren’t spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

ESPN: Behind The Fights Documentary- Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson: February, 1990

Source:ESPN- Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas documentary.

"The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... is a series that examines the athletes, coaches, front office personnel and even fans who over the years have been blamed for either a team's failure, their individual failure, a bad trade, a bad draft pick, or the demise of a franchise. The shows begin by explaining why that individual or team has been blamed over the years and then it peels away the layers between fact and fiction and count down the Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame them. This fast-paced series is a mix of documentary storytelling and the entertaining elements that make countdown shows fun to watch...  

From Silver Samurai

I saw the James Douglas-Mike Tyson World Heavyweight Championship fight as a fourteen year old in junior high on HBO in February, 1990. Actually I saw the replay of it, after I heard the shocking news that James Buster Douglas defeated Iron Mike Tyson for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was shocking, because Mike Tyson look unbeatable for about five years from 1985 until 1990, holding the WHC for about four years. He just didn't look unbeatable, but he was destroying his opponents.

Iron Mike beat former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith, and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. 

With Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter: tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.

Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. 

Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger.

Liberty Pen: 'A Story Of Enterprise (1955)'

Source:Liberty Pen- from the 1955 Story of Enterprise film.

“Is success in business largely a matter of luck? Do real economic opportunities still exist? Those questions were being asked in 1955, stimulating the production of, “A Story Of Enterprise.” Clifton L. Ganus Jr. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

This is clearly a propaganda film from people who believe in American capitalism and private enterprise. But the message is correct that people themselves are better off working and producing things and seeing what they can do for themselves, based on hard work and production. And not relying on government to do it for them.

The more people you have working and paying their own bills, the more tax revenue that you’ll have for people who go through rough times and need public assistance that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) speak so highly of, to help them out.

But the fewer people you have working, or not making enough money to support themselves, the smaller the economy will be and the less revenue that you’ll have for people who aren’t physically and mentally able to at least work full-time and able to support themselves. Which is why you need the largest workforce possible with the largest middle class possible. So you have the fewest people possible who are either unemployed, or undereducated and not able to get themselves a good job that will allow for them to be self-sufficient. And then you’ll have more money to help people who truly need it.

Private enterprise and capitalism are great things and I’m big fans of them. But they can only be as successful as their workforce will allow for them to be and be as good as their workforce. You need a good infrastructure system, good education, good workers and a good and efficient regulatory state, for your economy to be as strong as possible, to have the largest middle class possible. As many people as possible who are doing very well and even able to put money away and enjoy the luxuries in life. And for the people who fall through the cracks of system, an insurance system to help them out. But have that population be as small as possible.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

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

Liberty Pen: Harry Browne- 'Maximizing Personal Freedom (2002)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Harry Browne, ran for President for the Libertarian Party multiple times. 

"Harry Browne lectures from his masterpiece book, "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World." From Liberty Pen

From Liberty Pen

I love the message of maximize freedom as a Liberal. Because I believe people have the right to live their own lives. Again their own lives not trying to live other people’s lives for them. But that we should be able to live our own lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing.

It’s the anti-statist, or socialist, or fascist message, because it says that it’s not government’s job to protect us from ourselves. But to inform the citizenry of what the consequences of our decisions are. And then it's up to us as the people to make these decisions for ourselves. Again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing.

It doesn’t say that we have the right to hurt people, just the right to make our own decisions and then holds us accountable for our own decisions that we make as a country. Rather than government trying to live our lives for us.

It’s the ultimate message of pro-choice, but it just doesn’t relate to abortion, but how we live our own personal lives. What we can do with our own money, rather than government trying to make these decisions for us. The message of personal freedom and responsibility. That the people aren’t prisoners and not the job of government to direct our lives for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

CBS News: 'Mitt Romney and Barack Obama: No Difference'

 

Source:CBS News- President Barack H. Obama: D, Illinois- 45th POTUS.

"Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the same.  They have the same policies and are both puppets for Bilderberg and the CFR.  No matter how the media spins it or what the candidates say, they are not representing real change.  There is one candidate that does represent real and true change in America, change for the good and we must all put our differences aside and support this man any way we can." 

From CBS News 

Trying to tell the difference between "RomneyCare" and "ObamaCare" is like trying to tell the difference between a couple of lemons. You have to feel each of them, look closely, get into the details. But on paper they are essentially the same plans. Expanding private health insurance through tax credits, patient protections and requiring that all Americans pay for their share of their health care.

But other than health care reform, telling the difference between Mitt Romney, depending on which Mitt he decides to be based on what day it is, how the wind is blowing, how the weather is, which clone he decides to be that day, it can be very difficult without x-ray vision. They are very different on Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitt believes we should stay there, Barack believes we should get the hell out.

Mitt and Barack are different on deficit reduction. Mitt apparently believes that we can cut the debt and deficit, raising taxes on the poor and focusing on around 15% of the Federal budget. Or 555B$, he doesn't want to eliminate all of that by the way. Thats the non-defense and entitlement parts of the Federal budget. President Obama believes everything should be on the table, except raising taxes on the poor.

They are different on growing the economy. Mitt believes in more tax cuts and subsidies for corporate America and rich people. I don't have a problem with the tax cuts, if it comes with eliminating tax loopholes. Which Mitt views as tax hikes, apparently Mitt believes that if you eliminated all taxes on the wealthy and corporate America. And then eliminate all of the tax loopholes as well, Mitt would call that tax hikes, because you would be giving them less money. (Talk about fuzzy math)

I believe that's what would come under George W. Bush's definition of "Fuzzy Math". The President believes the way to grow the economy is to rebuild the country, its public infrastructure, infrastructure investment. Developing a national energy policy that would expand and create new energy industries in America. Putting millions of Americans back to work, as well as incentivizing people to spend money in the country. Including tax cuts for the middle class that need tax relief. Here a few areas where Mitt and Barack unfortunately are similar and why I'm disappointed with President Obama as a Liberal Democrat and it relates to social issues and civil liberties.

Mitt and Barack both support the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and the War on Drugs. You expect Republicans today to take these Big Government positions. If Mitt Romney was truly a Liberal as critics in the GOP call him and if he's a Liberal, the majority of people living in the Bible Belt are Muslims. If this was the case, then Mitt Romney would be against these things. If Barack Obama was a real Liberal and not a Moderate Liberal he would be against these things as well. And this is where the President has been disappointing and why Liberal Democrats are taking a look at Gary Johnson the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

There's plenty of differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama that Ray Charles could see. I just wish there were a hell of a lot more. So to call them twins or clones, is inaccurate. Mitt Romney already has a clone but his name is Mitt Romney as well. And that's the only twin or clone that he needs. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: 'Nanny of the Month (August 2012) Stimulus Money Used to Support Soda Taxes'

Source:Reason Magazine- U.S. Secretary of Heath and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

"Our nation's nannies have turned up the heat this summer.

August's slate of control freaks includes the silver state statists who might fine you 2,000 bucks for the crime of teaching someone how to apply makeup, and the Phoenix code enforcer who busted a woman for handing out free water in 112-degree heat (!) because she didn't have a license. 

Yet neither could managed to muster the the meddling of this month's top pick. Using federal taxpayers' dough (we're talking stimulus and Obamacare cash) to implement local-level soda taxes and other nanny state laws certainly violates good taste, but the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General thinks it might also violate federal anti-lobbying provisions.  

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month for August 2012: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius!

About 75 seconds."  

From Reason Magazine 

The main problem with central government planning, whether it comes from the Far-Left, which is generally about economic policy, but some social policy as well, or the Far-Right, which is generally about social policy, but some economic policy as it relates to labor, is that you have these groups of individuals who know what's best for everyone else, including people they don't even know. Which is why it's not just a huge, big government intrusion on individual freedom, but why these big government policies tend to fail.

Source:Real Life Journal- as bad as Washington can be, not all of the Nanny Statists live there.

Actually, I don't agree with this Nanny of The Month show from Reason. I did agree with the Nanny of The Month's for June and July. Mayor Mike Bloomberg essentially trying to outlaw soft drinks in New York and the people in Massachusetts trying to outlaw cursing in public. Thats exactly what political nannies are, people who try to protect others from themselves. 

What Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius was trying to do with her wellness campaign is preventive health care. Something we have to do as a country in order to bring down our health care costs.

What they are doing here is passing out funds from the Federal Government to encourage wellness campaigns. Not outlawing junk food, or junk drinks, but encouraging healthy dieting and exercise. Which is in our national interest, because it would bring down the health care costs for the country. 

This is not saying: "You have to eat and drink healthy and you have to exercise and if you don't, we'll lock you up in jail." Where you'll get less exercise and eat worse food, which is what we do in the War on Drugs, the definition of making problems worse by finding a problem, not only not fixing it, but making it worse.

The lady who got fined for handing out free water during one of the hottest summers we've ever had, which we are still having in most of the country, is a much better example of a nanny than the preventive health care campaign. And I would bet the fine that lady is going to have to pay is as much as we would be paying in sales taxes had she bought that water in a store and thats what this fine is about. This big government here thinking they were cheated in losing sales tax revenue. Because the people who got the bottle water got it for free and didn't pay sales taxes on it. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

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

The Late Show With David Letterman: Joan Jett (1987)

Source: The Late Show With David Letterman- Joan Jett & David Letterman.

"Joan Jett David Letterman January 1987"

From The Late Show With David Letterman

Joan Jett to me is the rocker chick of rocker chicks. The Queen of Rock & Roll at least when it comes to rocker chicks. You could argue that other female rockers have better music like Sheryl Crow, Tina Turner certainly and perhaps a few others. But I don't believe anyone represents the hard-core bad ass rocker chick better than Joan Jett. She has the attitude, the style, the music, she always looks great.

She's the Jim Morrison of female rockers when it comes to wearing leather everywhere especially with the leather jeans and jackets and not justing wearing those jackets and pants all the time, but like The Lizard Jim Morrison looking great in that outfit all the time. Joan is a pure rocker and Jim Morrison mixed in western wear with his cowboy boots and concho belts with his leather jeans and jackets.

But as far as wearing this look no male rocker has ever looked better in a leather suit than Jim Morrison and at least as far as a woman who wears leather all the time both the jeans and jackets, no one carries that look better than Joan Jett. You could argue that Melissa Etheridge, Meredith Brooks and perhaps a few other rocker chicks look better in leather jeans than Joan Jett. But as far as the whole hard-core bad ass rocker chick style no one does it better than Joan Jett. 

HBO Sports: Evander Holyfield vs Riddick Bowe- World Heavyweight Championship (1993)

Source:HBO Sports- for the World Heavyweight Championship.

"Riddick Bowe defends the heavyweight title against Evander Holyfield - the rematch of their bout one year prior. Hosted by Jim Lampley, George Foreman, and Larry Merchant. Recorded on VHS November 1993."  

From Sterling Wainscott

I remember the Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy of the early and mid 1990s very well, because I got to see all three fights. I was a junior in high school during the first fight in 1992, saw it on pay per view after I begged my dad to order the fight and we ended up watching at least part of it together. 

I've always had a lot of respect for Evander Holyfield, because he's the ultimate of professionalism when it comes to not only pro boxing but pro sports as well. No other boxer has ever worked harder or had more dedication to his craft which generally speaking helped him a lot but it also hurt him.

Evander, ended up fighting too long and losing to guys and getting beat up by guys, that 5-10 years earlier he would've beaten fairly easily. And hopefully he hasn't paid a long-term price for that when it comes to his health, we'll see later. But one problem I had with Evander, is that he seemed to have it a little too easy, he hadn't gotten much of a big challenge in the heavyweight division to this point. George Foreman gave him a pretty good fight in 1991, but Evander won most of those rounds and I wanted to see someone who not only gave Evander a big test but could actually beat him and thats where Riddick Bowe came in.

Evander Holyfield wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1990 by beating an overweight and overconfident James Douglas. Who probably thought way too much of himself after whipping and knocking out Mike Tyson for the Heavyweight Championship in January, 1990 in Japan. And before Evander fought Riddick Bowe, he defended his title successfully twice against two boxers who were once. Great but at this point of their careers were in the early forties, in George Forman and Larry Holmes. The super fight in the Heavyweight Division of the 1990s, was suppose to be Evander vs Mike Tyson.

With Iron Mike's rape case, Holyfield-Tyson, wasn't going to happen in the early 90s. Again this is where Riddick Bowe comes in: after coming off the 1988 Olympics where he didn't do as well as perhaps he should've, he was looking for a big challenge. And a chance to prove himself and why not fight for the World Heavyweight Championship and win it to accomplish it. 

The Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy was great because you have two great heavyweights at the prime of their careers. Probably the best two heavyweights of the 1990s, who both had a lot of respect for each other, who both knew that they had to be their best to beat the best, who was their opponent. Thats how they both saw these fights and why these fights worked out the way they did, two great fighters both bringing their a games to these fights. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

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

World Heavyweight Division: Ron Lyle Vs George Forman (1976)

Source:Murmurings of a Boxing Madman- George Foreman vs Ron Lyle in 1976.

"Big George Foreman was attempting to put back together the pieces that had been shattered in the African jungle by Muhammad Ali. Foreman had been devastated by his loss to The Greatest, hence the length of time he'd spent inactive between Zaire and hooking up with the equally big Ron Lyle. With fifteen months of inactivity under his belt and the ring rust one would expect to go with it, Foreman entered the ring at Caesars Palace for his first real fight since "The Rumble."...

From Murmurings of a Boxing Madman 

"After losing his title, Foreman remained inactive during 1975. In 1976, he returned to boxing in Las Vegas against Ron Lyle, (who had been defeated by Muhammad Ali in 1975 by a TKO in round 11, while leading on all scorecards by 6-4) in a fight hailed by Ring Magazine as "The Fight Of The Year." At the end of the first round, Lyle landed a hard left that sent Foreman staggering across the ring. In the second round, Foreman pounded Lyle against the ropes and might have scored a KO, but due to a timekeeping error the bell rang with a minute still remaining in the round[citation needed] , and Lyle survived. In the third, Foreman pressed forward, with Lyle waiting to counter off the ropes. In the fourth, a brutal slugfest erupted. A cluster of power punches from Lyle sent Foreman to the canvas. When Foreman got up, Lyle staggered him again, but just as Foreman seemed finished he retaliated with a hard right to the side of the head, knocking down Lyle. Lyle beat the count, then landed another brutal combination, knocking Foreman down for the second time. Again, Foreman beat the count. In the fifth round, both fighters continued to ignore defense and traded their hardest punches. Each man staggered the other and each seemed almost out on his feet. Then, as if finally tired, Lyle stopped punching and Foreman delivered a dozen unanswered blows until Lyle collapsed. The fight was stopped and Foreman was declared the winner." 

Source:Boxing At It's Best- Ron Lyle vs George Foreman, from 1976.

From Boxing At It's Best

George Foreman, knocking out one of the strongest fighters whose ever fought in Ron Lyle. What separates Big George and Big Lyle, I think has to do with the professional training that Forman had that he started as an amateur and of course the 1968 Summer Olympics. 

Ron Lyle, on the other hand learned how to box as a prison inmate in prison and learned how to fight there so he could make a legitimate living once he got out of prison. 

My point here is not to put Lyle down who was one of the hardest hitting and best power-punchers in boxing in the 1970s, but to show that Foreman wasn't just a slugger who would win his fights by landing the last big shot, but he was a boxer who knew how to box: how to take a punch and how to avoid punches. And he also had great training from Archie Moore and others. 

You could probably flip a coin as far as who was the stronger fighter and puncher in this fight. But Foreman was clearly the better boxer. George Forman, two-time World Heavyweight Champion. One of the best heavyweights of all-time. Can't say the same about Ron Lyle. 

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