Source: The Book Archive: Objectivism, Capitalism and Philosophy: James McConnell’s Interview of Ayn Rand in 1961
One thing I would give Ayn Rand credit for is her consistency. She believed the same things when she became well-known in the 1940s or so all the way up until she died. We agree when it comes to individual freedom that people should have the power to live their own lives and not be interfered with government as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person. This is something that Liberals have in common with Libertarians and Objectivists. But I guess the reason why objectivism has never caught on anywhere in the world and why libertarianism has just become a major movement in America and Canada in the last ten years or so is because even though a lot of people tend to believe in both personal economic freedom now. We also tend at least in America believe in a public safety net for people who truly need it.
Canada and Europe, are a bit different where they don’t believe that individuals should be left to take care of themselves and go further than just a social insurance system, which is what a safety net is. And have welfare states there to meet the basic needs of the people. Mixed in with private enterprise to fund those social programs and a good deal of personal freedom as well. As least for a social democracy. I like to call Americans Classical Liberals, or Social Liberals at least in the sense that we go further when it comes to both personal and economic freedom than Social Democrats. But one thing that separates us from Libertarians is that again we want a safety net for people who truly need it. Not a welfare state to manage people’s economic affairs for them. But social insurance for people who truly hit hard times.
Source: Free Association: Opinion: Sheldon Richman: ‘Planned Parenthood, Social Peace, And the Libertarian Approach’: The Case For Funding Planned Parenthood
This is going to sound strange coming from a Liberal, but I’m going to make a fiscally conservative, perhaps even classically liberal case for publicly funding Planned Parenthood. They serve low-income mothers and women who otherwise would have a very difficult time getting birth control and other women’s health care. Do people who call themselves Conservatives really want low-income women having more kids while they’re still collecting public assistance? Birth control is pro-life, because it prevents future Americans from having to live in poverty. Living with a single mother without the education and resources to raise their kids properly. Planned Parenthood is pro-life, because it provides millions of Americans with health care that they probably wouldn’t be able to get.
Tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood means the Federal Government doesn’t have to create some new Federal agency to provide the health care to millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it anywhere else. It means a smaller Federal Government, fewer Federal workers, less Federal tax dollars being spent on these services, because they’re not being provided by the Federal Government instead. We’re not talking about taxpayer funding of abortions which are illegal anyway and I support that except as Sheldon Richman put it under extreme circumstances. Like going through the pregnancy would kill the mother. What we’re talking about is health care not including abortions for millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it otherwise.
I know the libertarian argument about this is not government’s business and that they should butt out of what goes on in the private sector. But tell me where does that system exist in the world so I could look at that and see how it works. If you don’t have government serving people and seeing to it that people who might not be able to get by without that assistance gets help that they need, then what is government for. What’s the point of having a public sector at all? Government is supposed to serve the people. Not direct them, but to see to it that we all have a good shot at making it in life on our own. And preventing unwanted pregnancies and women from having to raise their kids in poverty, is part of that public service.
Posted in Freedom of Choice
Tagged Abortion, Birth Control, Cecile Richards, Free Choice, Liberalism, Liberals, Libertarianism, Libertarians, Personal Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Rights, Sheldon Richman, Women's Health Care
Source: Drew David: Faye Dunaway A&E Biography: The Great Dramatic Actress
I guess when I think of great dramatic comedic actress’s and what I mean by that is actress’s who combine both dramatic and comedic abilities in the same role, not actress’s who are great at both comedy and drama, but women who do both in the same roles, I think of Faye Dunaway, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall and a few others. But Faye is towards the top of this list if not at the top. Because she has this great ability at putting things exactly as they are with real feeling, but doing it in a great comedic and humorous way as well. Like the line she had in Network when she tells the Max Schumacher character (played by William Holden) that, “you aren’t the worst lay I’ve ever had. God knows I’ve had worst.”
Faye Dunaway is this tall gorgeous, baby-faced adorable actress, with this great dramatic and comedic abilities. Who seems to specialize at playing very cute gorgeous women who are very sharp and have a lot of energy and who are also smart asses. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that if Faye were a career soap opera actress she would be the best ever at that. She would have won have multiple awards for that every year and been on the top soap if not top show on TV every year. Best Actress should almost be her title. She’s really the best at whatever she does at least from her era. Lets call it the Baby Boom. Network is one of my favorite movies and other than maybe Peter Finch she was the best actor/actress in that movie. And Network is the perfect example of what dramatic comedy is. A movie that takes on serious subjects, but does it in a humorous way.
In many ways I see Faye Dunaway as a satirist. Someone who uses both drama and comedy to talk about serious subjects and does it in a very entertaining and sexy way. Chinatown with Jack Nicholson is another example of this where detective movies tend to be funny and Jack Nicholson is pretty funny in really anything he does so putting together with Faye Dunaway is an all-star combination. Network is Fay’s best and most famous part and where she was really the best on a great all-star cast with a great production team. But she’s had a lot of other great roles that’s shown all of her great abilities. Like Chinatown, The Towering Inferno. She’s a Hall of Fame actress who could’ve gone into the Hall of Fame thirty-years ago and I hope she’s around forever.
Vice President Joe Biden & Father Matt Malone
Source: Reason: Hit & Run: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Vice President Joe Biden Bashes Abortion, Defends Religious Freedom
I have a problem with Vice President Biden’s I guess latest position on abortion saying that abortion is not only always wrong, but then life starts at conception. Meaning when the mother of the fetus is actually pregnant. If he was anti-choice on abortion all together, I wouldn’t have a problem with this position. But I think someone who says life starts at conception, but is still in favor of choice when it comes to abortion, is essentially saying that women have a right to murder their babies. If you believe that life starts at conception then how could also you believe in choice when it comes to abortion and not be in favor of murder at least on a limited basis. I can understand why an Irish-Catholic like Joe Biden would want to appeal to Democrats if he runs for president. But this is not how you do it.
Joe Biden’s entire 36 year career in the U.S. Senate which is also his whole Congressional career he was pro-choice on abortion. By the way his first year in the Senate 1973 is when Roe V. Wade was also decided that gave American women the right to decide for themselves whether to complete their pregnancies, or end them on their own. Then Senator Biden always argued that reproductive rights and the right to choose on abortion was always been between the women and the doctor. That this was not up to government to interfere in these most personal of decisions. Which is my position as well just as long as women are paying for this choice and not putting the cost of these decisions on the backs of taxpayers . But I don’t take that position, because I believe abortion is murder and that I believe women, or men have that right.
It seems to me at the very least that if you’re position on abortion is that you’re pro-choice, then you take that position because you don’t believe that life starts at conception. Whether you’re Catholic, or come from any other faith, or don’t practice religion at all. That life starts at the very least towards the end of pregnancies which is why you would be against what is called partial-birth abortion. Or life starts at birth. So of you take that position you’re not saying that women have the right to murder their babies, because you believe a fetus doesn’t become a baby until it’s actually born. But if you say, “of course life starts at conception, but so what this is the women’s decision and if she wants to murder her baby by aborting it, that’s her choice.” A position like that would be hard to defend.
Posted in Freedom of Choice
Tagged 2016 Presidential Election, Abortion, Abortion Rights, Catholicism, Catholics, Democratic Party, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Joe Biden, Joe Biden For President, Liberalism, Matt Malone, Personal Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Pro Choice, Reproductive Rights
Source: Lee Estrada: NY Giants Chronicles: The 1960s and 1970s
I believe Bob Papa had the best line when he said that the New York Giants by 1964 were in transition. The great teams and success that they had in the 1950s and early 1960s was gone by 1964. And Giants running back Alex Webster (not Barney Rubble) had a great line as well when he said in 64 that the Giants had a bunch of players who played a year too long. They were an aging team that was carrying a lot of aging veterans who were past their primes and should’ve retired after the 62 or 63 seasons and simply no longer had it in 64 and the Giants collapsed and finished in last place in 64. And guys like Y.A. Tittle, Frank Gifford and Alex Webster, all retire after the 64 season. Leaving the Giants being forced to start rebuilding in 65.
To give you an idea of how good the Giants were from 1964-80. They never made the playoffs and had I believe had two winning seasons. The worst team in the NFC East in the 1970s. Again one winning season and year after year competing with their arch-rival the Philadelphia Eagles for last place in the NFC East. Two of the biggest markets and cities in the country and two of the most storied franchises in the NFL and yet they were consistently competing for last place in the NFC East. I think the problem with the Giants of this era was that they fired Allie Sherman too soon after the 68 season and then not finding a good head coach for them until Ray Perkins in 1979. They had several different head coaches during this period that all had one thing in common. Losing season after losing season.
As great as Wellington Mara was for the New York Giants franchise he made a lot of mistakes in the 1960s and 70s. Not having the right general manager and head coach in the 1970s and poor drafting set this franchise way back. Also not finding a replacement for Yankee Stadium which was really a baseball park that the Giants shared with the guess who. All of these things that contributed to the Giants essentially being asleep as a franchise especially in the 1970s. Even the Chicago Bears who were pretty bad in this period as well-managed a couple of winning seasons and made the playoffs in the 1970s. But they did make a few good draft picks in the mid and late 1970s like Harry Carson, George Martin and Phil Simms that set them up well for the 1980s. But by in large the 1970s was a bad decade for the New York Giants.
Source: David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview 1988: Ron Paul’s Libertarian Vision
Ron Paul, sounding less radical even as a Libertarian than I was expecting from him in 1988. He was talking about eliminating the income tax, which is something I would like to do, but then replacing it with a national sales tax, which is also something I want to do. Which is a top for another post. And he was also talking about sending more money and power back down to the states. Not eliminating public education, but making private education available to students. Very radical for lets say a Progressive, or Social Democrat on the left whose never in favor of eliminating, or even lowering taxes and not in favor of reducing the power of the Federal Government at least as it relates to the economy. But for a Libertarian not very radical.
Generally when you hear libertarian political candidates speak they say they’re going to repeal at least two amendments from the Constitution, eliminate the income tax, the New Deal, Great Society, pull all Americans troops out of Europe and Japan on day one of getting into office. Even if they know enough about that government that doing even a few of those things are not very practical. Because of the opposition that would come from both Republicans and Democrats. But also the voters as well. But by the time Representative Paul ran for president in 1988 he was already in his sixth term in the House and had a pretty good idea about how Congress worked. So he wasn’t proposing to repeal a bunch of constitutional amendments and that sort of thing, because he knows how difficult that is.