The Objective Standard: Craig Biddle: Is Objectivism a Cult?

Source:FreeState Now

I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.

Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that. "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, than somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.

So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives and Socialists will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems.

Reason: Nick Gillespie- The Libertarian Case for Gary Johnson

Source:FreeState Now

Here's a perfect example of why Libertarians should vote for the candidate they want, instead of what they would see as the lesser of two evils. Because if enough Libertarians vote for Gary Johnson for president, whether they are part of the Libertarian Party, Republican, Democrat or Independent, Libertarians if Gary Johnson were to get that magic 5% number, something that the Green Party's Jill Stein is going for with the Green Party, then the LP will have the resources to be able to compete in 2016, maybe double their 5%.

And then the LP could be a  serious factor in determining who wins the 2016 presidential election. Something they aren't right now for the most part. Maybe Governor Johnson pulls votes away from President Obama in places like Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps Florida. We'll wait and see, because he's someone who appeals more to Liberals than Conservatives. I'm a example of that as a Liberal, because Governor Johnson to me sounds more Liberal in the classic sense, than he does Conservative and perhaps even Libertarian. Gary sounds like a Left-Libertarian or Social-Liberal to me. Than a Ron Paul hard-core Libertarian.

If Gary Johnson were to break through in 2012 and get that 5%, the LP will have the resources to build their party for the future. And become a real factor in American politics and perhaps become the official third-party in America. Big enough to compete with Democrats and Republicans in the future. But that doesn't happen as long as Libertarians vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils or don't bother voting at all. Libertarians should turn out and vote for exactly who represents them, even if that candidate has no shot at winning. To be able to build their own party that can actually win.

CBS News: CBS News Bulletin: JFK Assassination Coverage 11/22/1963

Source:The Daily Press

You hate to have something like a presidential assassination, or any assassination really have to be the test of the quality of your news coverage or not. But unfortunately greatness only tends to come in times of tragedy and when you're tested. Times of war and being under attacked, when riots are going on, a death in the family, someone being out of work like your father, or another close relative and you don't know what the future is going to look like and you fear for it. But unfortunately that is how humans tend to operate. When we're not tested we tend to be somewhat lax and go back to our everyday normal activities.

And I think our network coverage from CBS News, perhaps especially as they were our biggest news operation back then and NBC News and even the much smaller ABC News, they were all really tested without precedent in how you cover a tragedy like this. No precedent in how you cover a presidential, or any other assassination in the electronic age of broadcast news and network news. All they had is the training and resources that they had to work with at the time. Which was make sure their people are on the story and getting the information needed and make sure the network executives are giving you the network air time to cover the story.

The JFK assassination is not the only reason why Walter Cronkite is America's newsman and why we haven't seen a network news anchor as good since. But it is certainly a reason, because you really got to see how professional and great he was and had to be and couldn't afford any mistakes. You also got to see his human side especially when he announced the death of President John F. Kennedy. And you got to see how hard of an announcement it was for him to make. Cronkite, personally knew Jack Kennedy and personally liked him. So it must have been announcing the death of one of your friends on live on national TV. With millions of people watching you and he did it as well as it could've been done.

NBC News: Lyndon Johnson's Last Day as President in 1969

Source:The Daily Journal

I'm guessing Lyndon Johnson was ready to leave the presidency and had enough. 1966, was  a really rough year for President Johnson and the Johnson Presidency. House Democrats, lose over forty seats in the House and three in the Senate. Because of the Vietnam War and how unpopular it was. Plus with the Republican Party and House Republicans, finally figuring out how to campaign and win in the South. Richard Nixon of course was a huge help there and he campaigned for a lot of House Republicans and House Republican candidates and did that in the South. Which helped him with his 1968 presidential campaign with all of these new Freshman Republican Representatives, who now owed him favors.

1967, the war gets even worst for the Johnson Administration in Vietnam. And now he's having a lot of problems with his own party in Congress. Starting with Senate Democrats holding Vietnam War hearings that started in 1965, but continued through the next Congress in 1967. Several Senate Democrats are now weighing presidential bids against their party leader in President Johnson. Like Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. The anti-war movement and the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s. And they're against President Johnson and calling him a war criminal, and war monger and a few things that you can't say on network TV, even today.

1968, was the topper with LBJ now being the most unpopular elected politician in America. And now there's talk if he can even win the Democratic nomination for president, let alone with the presidency against Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, or George Romney, in the Republican Party. By March 1968, President Johnson decides that he's had enough and doesn't want to run for reelection and announces that to the country. But 1968 is just getting started with two great political leaders, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin King, both being assassinated. There racial riots in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles. The Democratic Party, is now divided between their mainstream Progressives, which LBJ represents and their Far-Left. LBJ, was really smart not to run for reelection in 1968.

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand- The Altruism of the Soviet Union (1979)

Source:FreeState Now

Ayn Rand on Russian communism on the Phil Donahue Show from 1979, saying that Russian Communists believed that people weren’t people. But collections of the state, subjected to whatever the state wanted them to do. The difference between authoritarianism and liberal democracy. With authoritarianism depending on what type of authoritarianism we are talking about, it’s all about the state. A big centralized government, where all power is centralized in one political party generally.

And the people are there not to live their lives, but to serve the state. And once they get out of line, decide to live their own lives, or speak out against the state, they do that at their own risk. And risk severe harm to not only them, but their families as well. Just one of many difference between living in an authoritarian state which is what Soviet Russia was, or living in a liberal democracy like the United States. In a liberal democracy and free society, people tend to control their own lives. And then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.

In a communist state, to use as an example, individuals don’t exist. It is all about the state and the state is the society. Meaning the big central government decides what everyone needs and what everyone can do and use and just about everything else. Everyone in the country, is there to serve the state and especially the Communist Party and communism. Not there to make the best out of life that they can for themselves and their families. If freedom scares you and you don’t think you would be able to manage your own life, trying doing time in jail, or prison. Or living in a communist society, because freedom won’t be something that you would ever have to deal with.

JFK Assassination Fed Myth

Source:FreeState Now

President Kennedy, who is my number one political hero as a Liberal Democrat, was assassinated, because he was an anti-Communist. Who was opposed to Fidel Castro and the Communist Republic of Cuba. Thats why he was assassinated at least as it relates to Lee Oswald. And if there were other people involved, like the Italian Mafia, they were opposed to him because Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's opposition and War on Organized Crime. JFK, was seen as a threat and an enemy, to the both the Far-Left, meaning Communists, in and outside of America. And the Far-Right, for his support of civil rights, equality, helping people in need and I'm sure other reasons. And of course the Italian Mafia in America. Because President Kennedy, failed to remove Fidel Castro and his Communist Regime, who eliminated their casinos from Cuba.

These warped ideas, from both the Far-Left and the Libertarian-Right, that Jack Kennedy, was assassinated by the CIA, or perhaps the National Security Council, or Vice President Lyndon Johnson, are exactly that. Which is warped, with no real foundation behind any of those theories. Jack Kennedy, was President of the United States and was assassinated during the middle of the day during a parade in downtown Dallas, Texas. The only way you assassinate a man as powerful and well-protected as the President of the United States, is through private means. Someone who knows where the President is going to be and where he is. Who has a reason to do it and knows exactly what they probably be giving up. Lee Oswald and perhaps people who helped him, had that access and the tools and ability to carry out the assassination.

John Fugelsang: Mitt Romney vs. The GOP

Source:The Daily Journal

A President Mitt Romney and I doubt this would ever happen, but if it did it would be better for comedians. Because he's a gaffe and flip-flopping machine, that would provide comedians and bloggers mountains of material to make fun of him. Every comedian in America should endorse Mitt Romney for president for their own careers. Because they would make all the material they had against George W. Bush look as original as the New York Yankees winning the World Series, or Lebron James playing in the NBA Finals and losing. Because when it comes to taking political positions for Mitt, it depends on which group he's talking to and which Mitt is speaking to that group. Businessman Mitt, religious fundamentalist Mitt, Neoconservative Mitt, or whoever Mitt is when he's not running for whatever political office he's interested in at the time.

The fact that someone like Mitt Romney who flips backs and forth more often than tennis balls at a tennis match, could win the Republican nomination for president, is like a quarterback winning the starting position for an expansion team.

"Since no one else seriously tried out and you haven't done any time in any mental institutions and don't see same-sex marriage as a threat national security, we'll give the job to you. And good luck to you as we're more interested in 2016 anyway. When we might have at least on candidate who can actually win." Mitt Romney won the GOP presidential nomination, because he seemed like the only person who was sane to the GOP establishment and would embarrass them the least and not cost them the House of Representatives. Which they can't afford to lose in 2012.

So yeah, a President Mitt Romney (I'm shitting bricks just saying that) would have been great for comedy and blogging interesting. Especially bloggers who right comedy and I'm one of them. But bad for the American people, because for them to have any idea what their President thinks about any issue, they would have to listen and read every single he says. Because his positions could change the next time he opens his mouth about anything depending on who he's talking to. And what the polls in the Republican Party are saying.

President Romney Senior Adviser- Aw Mr. President, your current position on that issue is not popular.

President Romney- Okay, I'll change it.

Senior Adviser- But you just took that position yesterday.

Romney-  So what! I'm speaking to Americans. Their memories aren't that long anyway."

That is what a President Romney would be like. Who knows what the President, because he doesn't even know. Great for comedy, but bad for the country.

Sky News: Cesar Millan, Dog Whisperer, Rejects Cruelty Claims

Source:Real Life Journal

Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them. Before they will open up to you and trust you and once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.

He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in. And teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. Its hard to imagine someone like that as a bullshit artist. Who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.

Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around. When your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. I have a hard time believing that someone like that who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal.

Henry Hanrahan Edits: The 100 Greatest Movie Insults of All Time

Source:Real Life Journal 

What I get out of this video, is that we shouldn’t be around the bush. If we are really pissed at someone or see them as complete losers and don’t give a damn about what they think, we should simply just tell them. “Don’t beat around the bush, tell them what you really think”. I’m perfectly cool with that, the only thing is I tend to go out of my way not to be around people I see as complete assholes or morons. Call me crazy, but I don’t like hanging out with assholes or morons. I know more than I care to admit to and I tend to want to be at least a zip code away from them so I don’t have to admit that I actually know that person. Like if I’m ever under oath having to testify about their latest boneheaded screwup.

Now if I just happen to be around an asshole who thinks they are as big and great as Godzilla, even though a baby could step on them and they get in my face and we have a little argument, by all means I’ll more than defend myself especially verbally, if simply laughing at them and trying to move on doesn’t work. There are times that assholes need to know what they are, if anything to give them incentive not get into someone else’s face in the future and bring a squirt gun to a machine gun fight. And I’m talking about real machine guns with real bullets, not a water machine gun.

Insults obviously have their place in life and without them some people would have no idea about big of a loser or asshole they are. Because they would never get it anyway and need that light to go off in their head and to get the point that they have serious flaws that need to be addressed. My issue is how you go about insulting someone. Do you bring yourself down to the level of the asshole that you’re putting down, or do you actually put some thought into how you critique that person.

Do you tell the asshole,”holy shit you’re a fucking moron!” Or do you put some thought like, “I would call you a fucking moron, but that would be an insult to fucking morons”. And there was a similar line like that in this video. Also swearing, if you have to swear to put someone down, you’re probably not much better off than the person you’re putting down. I realize how popular cussing and swearing is today and I get that and use it myself, but mostly when I’m pissed or shocked about something. Something like “holy shit! The Washington Redskins actually won a game”. If you are familiar with 2012 Redskins, or the Redskins in recent years, you know winning is like a holiday for them. It doesn’t happen that often and sometimes they even go months without winning.

I like put downs or insults that come with thought. I mean if you were to call me an asshole, mother fucker, go down the line, the most you’ll get from me is a smirk, because I’m probably laughing about the brain cramp you just had coming up with that. If you’re going to call someone stupid, give them an example of how stupid they are. “When God was passing out the brains, it was your day off, so you didn’t get one. Or he passed on you, because he didn’t think you were worth the effort or would try to sell your own brain”. You want to put me down or impress me with an insult, then impress and put some real thought into what you are trying to say.

Paul J. Watson: Real Time With Bill Maher- 'Ben Affleck Defends TSA 'Dick Grabbing'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Alt-Right loudmouth Ann Coulter.

Source:The Daily Times

"During a recent appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time, actor Ben Affleck defended the TSA's policy of grabbing people's genitals. Affleck probably isn't too fussed about what the TSA do because he is driven straight to the runway to board his private jet - he doesn't even have to go through TSA security!" 

From Paul J. Watson 

Ben Affleck, taking another stand for Big Government! I could just imagine him running for office as a wannabe politician and imagine what his campaign message would be.

He would say something to the affect: “If you think you have too much freedom and privacy in your life and have too many decisions to make, vote for Ben Affleck. Because I would support policies to take all of that freedom and privacy away from you. Vote for Ben Affleck and you won’t even have to worry about your private parts being private. Because I would appoint Dick Grabbing to run TSA for us. And he would take care of that for you. And he and his Dick Grabbers will be there to make sure your private parts are never too private at the airport.”

Now imagine that for a campaign theme: Americans For Big Government and the Nanny State Alliance and Americans For Outlawing Freedom and Privacy, would endorse Mr. Affleck faster than snow melts in Los Angeles in July. 

Slate: Romney Boys Can't Contain Their Obama Debate Anger

Source:The Daily Press

Not the most loving and respectful men of the presidency. The Romney Boys, they seem more like thugs working for their father. They seem to want to do what their father other than in the first presidential debate what their father couldn’t do. Which is to beat up President Obama, or at least beat him somewhere. I mean Mitt, clearly wins the first debate and is still clearly trailing the President in the Electoral College, despite now being neck in neck with the President in the popular vote. Mitt, doesn’t look like a winner right now, but someone whose trying to find any place where he can win. So he’s not the Mike Dukakis of the GOP. Someone who badly loses a presidential election that he should have won.

It’s hard to hear negative facts about your father especially in a political campaign. Especially when those facts are about one’s lack of experience, knowledge, judgement, honesty and even credibility. The Romney Sons, might know who Dad is, but the problem is their Dad won’t let the rest of the country know. Because he keeps turning into someone else depending on what office he’s running for, what year he’s running and the people he feels he needs to have supporting him. He’s Moderate Mitt in Massachusetts, he’s Religious Conservative Mitt in 2007 when he’s going for the Christian-Right in Iowa and South Carolina. And now he’s the businessman with results, even though as Governor of Massachusetts, he had a weak jobs record. And laid off a lot of people as a businessman.

Who is Mitt Romney and what do you believe in? Would be my question to him if I ever interviewed him. But I would be carrying a whole notepad of paper, or perhaps my laptop waiting for ten different answers to the same questions. As he’s telling us every different position he has on the same issue. And doing that for each issue. Americans are funny this way in that we like our presidential candidates to tell us who they are and what they believe with some consistency before we decide who we’re going to vote for, not after. I guess we’re just stubborn that way and don’t have much faith in coin flipping when it comes to choosing our political leaders. But we’re into finger flipping when it comes to political leaders that we don’t like. As Mitt knows all too well right now.

Slate Magazine: Mitt Romney- 'Binders Full of Women Meme to Take Over The World'

Source:The Daily Press

Is Mitt Romney capable of getting through an appearance, debate or otherwise, without making a gaffe. Or maybe these so-called gaffes aren’t gaffes and he actually believes in this, lets say garbage and it just slipped out. Does Mitt even at this point where he’s clearly trailing in big Republican states like Florida, Virginia and Ohio, where he needs to win at least two of those states in order to win the presidency even want to be president? Or is he writing a new book, perhaps political manual on how not to run for president if you want to win. The title of the book actually being, “Mitt Romney’s How Not to Run For President.” Maybe he’s hoping he can get Congress even with a Democratic Senate in it, to repeal the 19th Amendment that guarantees all American women the right to vote. And with that he wouldn’t have to bother campaigning for female voters.

I imagine when it comes to life in general and in business, Mitt Romney is a tall handsome, young-looking for a Baby Boomer, intelligent, good man. But when it comes to politics, he must have slept in when God was handing out political brains. I haven’t seen a national politician this week when it comes to appealing to average voters since George H.W. Bush in 1992. When he didn’t know the price of milk and his own Vice President miss spells potato. And this is probably because President Bush hadn’t been to a grocery store and bought his own groceries in over twenty-years at that point. If I’m a women, (and no I’m not looking for a sex change) am I supposed to feel good about Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women”? Or should I take that as a guy who probably watches too much Cinemax late at night, because he can’t sleep, because from all the coffee he drinks on the campaign trail?

As a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney is a gunslinger who always has his gun pointed at his feet and forgets turn the safety off. I don’t know how the man walks around anymore having shot off so many of his own toes. He barely beats a man who wants to take America back to 1955 in a national time machine where women weren’t supposed to work and perhaps even vote. Where gays were locked in prison cells and mental institutions, as well as closets. That being Rick Santorum of course and is now running against a President who struggles to hit fifty-percent when it comes to his own popularity. With high unemployment and weak economic growth. And Mitt finds himself trailing in several big Republican states that he has to win. I mean is Mitt Romney really all the Republican Party has to offer for president? And is this the best they have?

Reason: Anthony Fisher: Jessica Blake & Erik Jenson on The Exonerated: True Stories of The Innocent Sprung From Death Row

Source:Real Life Journal

Anyone whose pro-death penalty and I’m one of them, should be in favor of a long appeals process. To make sure that we get the right people, so to speak and not rush to put to death the wrong people. Not an appeals process that extends the process indefinitely, but that allows inmates and lawyers to bring new appeals, as long as they can bring new evidence that suggests that they may be innocent. So we are always executing the right people and not putting to death the wrong people.

That is the only way to make sure that the death penalty can be applied fairly. Putting the wrong person to death even by accident, whether you’re talking about manslaughter, or giving the wrong person the death penalty, is not a mistake that you can take back. I would be fine with a short appeals process without the death penalty. Because if the convicted murderers lawyers truly believe their client is innocent, they can still work on the case. And if they find evidence that proves their client is innocent, they can always present that evidence and open that case back up.

Every pro-death penalty person, especially if they consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time, should be in favor of a death penalty case like this. Because it makes their case for the death penalty better. That there isn’t a rush to put someone to death. Because they know if the person is guilty they’ll never leave prison anyway. And it gives opponents of the death penalty less evidence and a smaller case to use against the death penalty. And they would have a harder time saying that innocent people have been put to death because of the death penalty.

Cowie 74H: Beautiful Party Girls

Source:Cowie 74H- beautiful party girl.

Source:The Daily Times

“Celebrities hot Cameron Diaz Sheryl Crow free anal invasion.”  

From Cowie 74H 

Beautiful, sexy woman, perhaps at the private room at a club, or perhaps the girlfriend of some band member at the club. Sorry I don't have more information about her, but she's dressed like she's at a nightclub and dressed perfectly for that. 

Source:The Daily Times- beautiful party girl.

Where they got the title of this video of: “sucking Michael Jackson hot white.” I have no idea, because this video has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Jackson. It is simply a beautiful brunette sitting on the stool on her cell phone from late 2008. In a tank top and skinny denim jeans. And she looks great, but the video is short, but what she get to see from her is pretty sexy. 

Again a beautiful baby-face brunette on her phone with beautiful legs and a nice butt in skinny denim jeans. I wish I knew the jeans brand, but a very attractive woman. But this video has nothing to do with Michael Jackson. It is simply a very attractive woman sitting on her stool pretending to be on the phone.

The Daily Buzz: Deidre Hall and Lynne Bowman

Source:Real Life Journal

Deidre Hall, at least to me is the ultimate American Sweetheart. She’s gorgeous yes, but she is so freaking cute, baby-face adorable really and still is, now in her mid sixties. She doesn’t look much older now more than five years ago when I started watching the reruns of the soap operas as night. Because I had to work during the day. Everything she does, even the way she sits down and moves around or even talks on the phone and of course the way she speaks, makes me want to go, aw! Because she so sweet and has been one of the top soap actress’s, for what thirty years now. And has been on one of the top three soap operas ever since. Days of Our Lives, to go along with General Hospital, which is the best one of the bunch. And The Young and The Restless as well. And she’s just as sweet and funny in real life apparently, as she is on Days.

Nea Zixnh: VH1"s Divas 1999: Cher- If I Could Turn Back Time

Source:Real Life Journal

The only Cher song that I like and perhaps because of the candor in it. A song about regret and I think it was about her relationship with Sunny Bono, a great classic rock song. This performance was part of VH1's Divas series that they did annually in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No idea if they still do that, but Cher whatever you think of her certainly qualifies as a diva. Great voice, great personality, great body, certainly very entertaining. And she's lived a hell of a life and with comes with that comes a lot of regret. Things you wish you shouldn't have said and done and perhaps got caught up in the moment and took out your anger on someone. "If I Could Turn Back Time", again great song, but it is sort of like saying, "if only I owned a helicopter, I would be able to avoid rush hour traffic everyday." People aren't tested by what they would have changed if they could go back. You learn from mistakes and then move on. We are tested by how react and carry ourselves in the moment. The better we do in real-time, the fewer mistakes that we'll make as we move on.

ABC News: Video: Nightline, Bill Weir, Melrose Place Cast Reunion

Source:The Daily Press

I only caught the last couple seasons of Melrose Place, because at first I thought the writing was kinda cheesy. And I’m not a big fan of soap operas to begin with, but I was flipping around one Monday night, in I believe 1997, looking for something to watch before Monday Night Football. Which at that point I watched every Monday night and I caught a little of Melrose Place and I figured what the hell, I would watch a little of this before the game. And I couldn’t stop laughing, it was a very funny show with people constantly screwing over other people and doing it in such a casual way and the writing of it was actually pretty good.

I’m not a soap opera expert obviously, but I think a good soap opera has all the selfishness and people screwing others with very little fear about the consequences for themselves or the people they are screwing. As well as the crazy lives that only people in Hollywood could live and write into a script. But a good soap opera has great writing, very funny writing and very funny people in it. Which is why I’m actually a late, but definite fan of General Hospital, because that show essentially has a cast for comedians or comedic actors. Who are also great actors and combine both roles very well. People who improvise and with writers who give them great lines.

Reason: Kennedy: The Cast of Atlas Shrugged Part II Talks Film's Impact

Source:Real Life Journal

Atlas Shrugged written by Ayn Rand reminds me of someone who I guess knows the world is about to explode and they're going to die anyway and basically says, "what the hell? I have nothing to lose at this point. I can do whatever I want, because I'm going to die anyway. So thats exactly what I'm going to do." The world is literally on fire and I'm writer and I can write anything I want. Because no one is going to read it anyway. And even if someone does read it, no one is going to remember it, because everyone is going to be dead." Atlas Shrugged, is a complete and total fantasy with really no base in reality in it. And looks like something that was written by someone who perhaps had months to live, who was a writer and decides to write whatever they want at this point. With no editor to answer to, because no one is going to read it anyway.

Atlas Shrugged, is essentially a fantasy about what can happen when the private sector and a capitalist economy is regulated. Its not about what can happen when a developed, or highly developing country with a strongly growing an educated middle class, where poverty is shrinking, is taken over by Marxist revolutionaries. That decides to outlaw political parties, private property, starts detaining people who oppose them and nationalizes industries. We already know that story because we've seen it before. Lebanon comes to mind and perhaps you could make a case for Cuba as well. That would be a good book and movie and it would sell well if their done right. Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand in 1957, there hasn't been an example of a regulated private enterprise economy that has collapsed just because it is regulated, since that book was written.

Atlas Shrugged, which I'm sure is very clever and well-done and written by Ayn Rand, that shouldn't be a surprise. But as a movie it sounds like bad sci-fi movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Every developed country in the world operates under some form of rule of law. That government is not there to tell people who to live their own lives and control our movement's, or anything like that. There isn't a single developed country in the world that is a Marxist state, or some type of authoritarian state from the Far-Right. But all developed countries do regulate how people interact with each other and regulate the economy. Not to run business's, but to protect customer's and workers. And economies can be over regulated and when that happens they struggle. But they all have some type of regulatory state that is there to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Ayn Rand lived in a great developed country like that for a very long time. That being America.

David Von Pein: WFAA-TV News Dallas: Lee Harvey Oswald Has Been Shot

Source:The Daily Press

A crazy month November, 1963. First the President of the United States, Jack Kennedy is assassinated. The National Football League suspends its games the following week and then the man who assassinated President Kennedy, is killed himself. It sort of looked like the world was coming undone and perhaps the last time that president’s were allowed to be that open and vulnerable in public. And that security was even tightened for people suspected of killing high-profile people whether they are politicians, or other celebrities.

Great books and documentaries have been made about these stories and the Federal Government thought they figured out how to deal with people who are so intent on assassinating politicians. But they let someone slip through in 1981, when John Hinkley was almost successful in murdering President Reagan. When the President was leaving a hotel, I believe the Mayflower in Washington. All of these events have made the American presidency less public and more closed to the American people.

A lot of people, columnists like George Will and others say and believe that the 1963 JFK Assassination was the end of the 1950s. And that assassination brought in the radicalization of the 1960s. And brought in a fairly violent decade. I and others would argue that a lot of that radicalism was necessary at least as it had to do the with civil rights movement and then later the anti-Vietnam War movement. But a lot of people were simply murdered in this decade that no one except for perhaps the haters of those murder victims see as positive things. Like President Kennedy, Dr. Martin L. King and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Jim Morrison & The Doors: Live at The Hollywood Bowl (1968)

Source:The Daily Journal

I’ve seen this concert several times and I’m no music expert, but I am a pretty big fan of The Doors especially Jim Morrison and I disagree with the critics about this concert at least to this degree. I don’t believe Morrison was as off as the critics believe he was. I think he did a great job with the vocals and how he entertained the audience in general especially the women. With how he danced and moved around and played around with his leather jeans.

If you watch the PBS film from 2010 about The Lizard King there is this line in it about how Morrison picked out his clothes. That his skin-tight leather pants which were leather jeans and concho belt were about showing off and showcasing his crotch. And you see him messing around with his pants all through the concert and the camera zooming in on his crotch, butt and legs in those skin-tight jeans throughout the concert.

Not the best Doors concert and not Morrison at his best. But it was classic Lizard King on the vocals dancing around and showing himself off. And a great chance to see Jim Morrison and The Doors live and in color and I just wish there were more opportunities for that. Especially since they were big in the late 1960s when color TV and movies were very common if not expected by then. It would’ve been nice had they filmed more of their concerts in color.

The Longines Chronoscope: Former Progressive Presidential Candidate Henry Wallace (1952)

Source:Free State MD

Henry Wallace, ran for President in 1948, when the United States essentially had four major presidential contenders. Democratic President Harry Truman, Republican Governor Tom Dewey, Dixiecrat Governor Strom Thurmond and Progressive Henry Wallace. And apparently President Truman a Democrat, even though he advocated what was called the Fair Deal, which was to build on the New Deal from the 1930s, wasn’t progressive enough for Henry Wallace. So Wallace, ran for the Progressive Party. Henry Wallace was a classical Progressive/Socialist, or Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat and I mean small d when it comes to Democrat. Someone who believed in democracy obviously, but a certain type of democracy.

Henry Wallace, believed in democratic socialism or social democracy. Thats common in Europe and wanted to expand on the New Deal and go even further in guaranteeing health insurance and health care. To use as examples, college as well and using the Federal Government heavily, to produce an economy that was as strong and as fair as possible. Investing heavily in public infrastructure, Federal aid to Education, that sort of thing. And combined his economic progressivism with social liberalism. Big believer in civil rights and equal rights for all. Way ahead of the Democratic Party in the 1940s and deserves a lot of credit for that.

I think what really separates Henry Wallace from mainstream Progressive Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey, has to do with foreign policy and national security. That would be the negative side, where I don’t believe Wallace took the threat of the Soviet Union and communism around the world seriously enough and perhaps even sided with them on some things. His positive aspect and I believe the best part of Wallace’s political legacy and what he had in common with Hubert Humphrey and where he separated from Roosevelt and Truman, had to do with civil rights and equal rights. Wallace and Humphrey, supported what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was finally passed by Congress and singed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. And Henry Wallace, deserves a lot of credit for that.

Reagan Foundation: 1984 Presidential Candidate Debate: President Reagan & Walter Mondale

Source:The FreeState

I just saw this debate Saturday, because I knew I would probably be blogging about it this week. This was the debate that Walter Mondale was remembered for looking really strong and quick. Able to go toe-to-toe with the President of the United States and actually beat him. While Ronald Reagan, looked old, slow and unsure of himself and how to answer the questions. President Reagan, clearly didn't look good in the first debate, but didn't look as bad as he tends to be remembered. His answers were somewhat slow and so-forth, but he answered the questions and didn't take any shots from Vice President Mondale lying down. He took them on and threw some back as well.

But Fritz Mondale just looked good the whole night, while admitting that the economy had definitely improved from four years earlier. That the economy wasn't as strong as it needed to be and that we paid a heavy price for the recovery that we were going through. Increases in debt and deficit and, "if we continued to allow those things rise, we would pay for it in high interest and inflation rates later on." He was right, because the Stock Market crashed just three years later in 1987. The economy slowed in 1989 and of course we had a recession in 1990-91.

This was Fritz Mondale's opportunity to get back in the race. He was down 10-15 points going into this debate and took advantage of it. He brought President Reagan's lead down a bit and had he had a great debate in the second debate, he could've prevented the landslide that came and could've made it a very tight race. His second debate wasn't bad, but President Reagan just bounced back and had a very good debate as well. With the memorable line when he was asked about his age, suggesting that he might be too old for President, by saying that, "I'm not going to make age an issue in this election and exploit Fritz Mondale's youth an inexperience." Whether voters decided that Fritz Mondale would've been a better President or not, what they did decide, was that they liked Ron Reagan more and liked where the country was going and headed and weren't ready to fire President Reagan.