Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Michael Vermeylen: Hollywood Communists- Hollywood on Trial

Source: Michael Vermeylen- Hollywood writer Dalton Trumbo-
Source: Michael Verymeylen: Hollywood Communists- Hollywood on Trial

My whole problem and issue with the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigation that Congress investigated in the 1940s first in the House and later in the Senate in the 1950s, is that it was hypocritical and violated most of the individual rights that Americans love and cherish and that so-called Conservatives back then said they cherished as well which was our individualism, free expression, free speech, free assembly, the right for Americans to believe what they want and to practice their own politics as they please. Whether they were Far-Left Communists and Socialists that believed America was the real Evil Empire and Russia as misunderstood. Or Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists who saw African-Americans and other non-Europeans as animals.

You had these Far-Right Republicans in the House of Representatives especially, who saw even the belief in communism and people having communists beliefs as some threat to American and Western civilization, that even having Communists in America at all even as private citizens with no foreign government connections and people who just had communist beliefs, would somehow destroy America. And saw Communist Americans who again only had those political beliefs as people who don't have the same constitutional and individual rights as people who believe African-Americans aren't real Americans and therefor underserving of the same rights as European-Americans. You literally had right-wing racists believing that Communists who weren't bigots, weren't real Americans and therefor should be put in jail simply for their political beliefs.

You have political correctness on the Far-Left and some of that comes from Communists or people with communist leanings at least who believe they know best how every American should think and what they should believe. And believe any humor and criticism of racial and ethnic, as well as religious minorities is bigoted and therefore should be censored even though law even if the humor and criticism is accurate. But you also have political correctness on the Far-Right in America coming from the Christian-Right as well as Nationalist-Right or Alt-Right, who believe they the real Americans because of what they think and how they live and believe anyone who looks at the world differently are Un-American and therefor do not deserve the same rights as these supposed real Americans. And the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee was a big part of that.

The only Un-American thing about HUAC ( House Un-American Activities Committee) was the committee itself. They should've been investigating themselves for being Un-American. The House should have created another select committee to investigate the Un-American activities of UUAC. Because in America we have a guaranteed right to free speech under the First Amendment. That cover the freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all. The right to believe what we want, to associate with who we want short of known criminals, and the right to say what we want short of falsely libeling people or harassing people, inciting violence. And the so-called HUAC committee violated most if not all of our First Amendment rights and should have never been put together.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Connor Higgins: George Wallace's Life in 16 Minutes

Source: Connor Higgins-
Source: Connor Higgins: George Wallace's Life in 16 Minutes

Was George Wallace a racist, or a demagogic career politician, or perhaps both things? Well, the same question could be asked about Donald Trump and Patrick Buchanan, unfortunately. One of those men being the current President of the United States. Or, was George Wallace a Progressive? He was a big believer in education and even public education and infrastructure investment. Wallace envisioned Alabama as becoming state that would be less poor and rural that could move past its reputation as being a redneck backwoods ignorant state that expected Jesus to solve all their problems for them and instead have Alabamians go out and solve their own problems for themselves starting with a good education and a modern infrastructure system.

You could also debate whether George Wallace was a Progressive or a Conservative. He was a Federalist and a true believer in states rights even to the point that he believed Bible States could deny African-Americans access that Caucasians had simply because of race. Franklin Roosevelt was a true Progressive, but he wasn't that far to the left of George Wallace on civil rights issues. They both opposed civil rights laws. But they both believed in a strong safety net, public education, infrastructure investment, strong national defense, both were strong anti-Communists. George Wallace's politics was pretty complicated similar to Richard Nixon and now Donald Trump.

But you can't put Wallace in one box as a Conservative or a Liberal, because he was neither. You could call him a Progressive because Progressive is actually different from Liberal. One focusing on progress through government action. The other centered around individual rights. And as far as Dixiecrats or right-wing Democrats, George Wallace was to the left of many of his fellow Dixiecrats on economic policy and believed again in public education, public infrastructure, progress, and even raising taxes to promote these objectives. Dixiecrats back then not only opposed civil and equal rights, but opposed public safety net programs and were more libertarian on economic policy.

And George Wallace changed his stances on civil rights issues by the late 1970s and became a believer (at least officially) in not just civil rights but equal rights while retaining his progressive leanings on economic policy and still remaining a strong anti-Communist, as well as Federalist, and believer in a strong national defense. He was to the right of Teddy Kennedy, but to the left of Strom Thurmond and many if not all of his fellow Dixiecrats. Which is why neither the liberal or conservative labels, fit George Wallace's politics. Which makes him very similar to Richard Nixon.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

A Spoon Full of Paulo: Intimate Interview With Marsha Mason

Source: A Spoon Ful of Paulo-
Source: A Spoon Full of Paulo: Intimate Interview With Marsha Mason

When I think of Marsha Mason I think of that smile and laugh. She's so freakin cute and silly, reminds me of Dyan Cannon at least in that sense. So, if I were talking to her I would do anything I could to get her to either laugh or smile so I could see her doing those things and then give her a big hug and yell out, "you're so cute! Because that is exactly what she is just flat out adorable and silly and at times like a little girl.

As far as Marsha Mason as an actress, she's very good if not great and very versatile. Love her in romantic comedies like the Goodbye Girl, but she's also great in dramatic roles like Heartbreak Ridge with Clint Eastwood, but Heartbreak Ridge is also a very funny movie as well. Its basically a action/comedy or at least dramatic/comedy dealing with serious issues obviously being about the U.S. Marine Core. And it also has very funny people in it including Clint, but Marsha, Mario Van Peebles and others.

She's an actress who I think was born for dramatic comedy and Chapter Two with James Cann is another example of that where that movie gets very cold and dramatic with the Jimmy Cann character, but she's so good in it in trying to bring back this widower that she just married out of his shell and getting him to open up to her and is pretty funny in how she expresses her honest anger at him for shutting her out mentally, because he's still stuck on his beautiful but dead wife.

Chapter Two that also had Valerie Harper and Joe Bologna, is a great funny look at romance in life and how early middle age Americans in New York deal with failed and failing marriages and trying to start over in life. A perfect role for Marsha because you get to see her great dramatic as well as comedic abilities in that movie. The same thing with Jimmy Cann as well. Who plays a great wiseass in that movie, at least when he's not depressed.

Marsha Mason is still this beautiful adorable actress, but has always been that good. But she's always been a great dramatic/comedic actress similar to Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor, Lana Turner, Ava Gardner, Raquel Welch. She's really this great and if you see this interview she see how silly and adorable she is and if I was interviewing her in this piece I would have swamped her with charm and humor as well, just to see those big adorable cheeks and to see her laugh and be silly. She's someone who is a lot of fun and great to look at, but one of the best actresses we seen in a long time.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Reason Magazine: Andrew Heaton- 13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason Magazine: 13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore

Just to be clear, I don't hate anyone that I don't personally know. Other than Adolph Hitler and murderous racist tyrants like that. And Roy Moore is obviously a bad guy and not particularly bright apparently and how he ever got a law degree I believe deserves an investigation into the school that he graduated from. I mean, here's a man who doesn't even believe in the U.S. Constitution and yet somehow becomes a judge in America. You would think even Alabama would want judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Roy Moore is a man who claims to be a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian and yet he can't even accurately quote or interpret the Bible. Claiming that homosexuality is not only a sin, but that people who could be arrested if caught doing homosexuality activity. Saying that is what God would want. Even though Roy Moore as never even met, heard or read anything that this supposed God has ever said. Which would put him in club of roughly 320 million members and that is just in America alone. The American club for people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said is so full and not big enough for the entire world of people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said. And yet Roy Moore who puts his fundamentalist, made up frankly interpretation of the Bible, over the U.S. Constitution.

Can't label Roy Moore a so-called Constitutional Conservative either or big believer in rule of law. But only because he isn't and doesn't believe in rule of law. Not because I'm putting the man down or something, or at least anymore than he deserves. Because Moore only believes in enforcing laws that he believes in and agrees with. Which is a Christmas gift from Santa Clause to every Anarchist who has ever lived. Imagine if everyone else and not just Roy Moore only had to follow laws that they agree with. You don't think there would be some spike in crime do you? And and far as Constitutional Conservative. Roy Moore being quoted as believing in eliminating only half of our constitutional amendments going from 11-20. Including the amendment that eliminated slavery. Where's the constitutional conservatism there? That is not conserving, but eliminating.

How about church and state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof. Well, its a good thing that Roy Moore won't be going to Congress now for lots of reasons, but a big one being that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. And perhaps would work as a senator to try to disobey the First Amendment, because again he doesn't agree with it, so he doesn't believe he should have to follow it. Roy Moore is the classic case of not ready for prime time and represents someone who simply doesn't have the judgment and knowledge to be serving in public office, at least not Federal office.

I realize its easy to put down and critique someone who just lost a huge Senate seat in the state of Alabama, who also just happens to be a Republican and being the first Republican to lose an Alabama Senate seat in a generation and this these are embarrassing enough for even a so-called Republican who doesn't even believe in the republic and yet he calls himself a Republican, which I guess is a different story. Roy Moore is a Christian-Theocrat ideologically which is different. But Roy Moore should be the lesson and example of what not to do and be if you're a Republican and even a Bible Belt Republican and a lesson for the Republican Party even in the Bible Belt. And if they learn this lesson they can avoid further embarrassments in the future.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: The 1944 Coup Against Vice President Henry Wallace

Source: The Real News-
Source: The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: The 1944 Coup Against Vice President Henry Wallace

The division between in the Democratic Party between the Hillary Clinton, even though I don't believe she's that strong of a Democratic leader anymore, but her New Democratic Theodore Roosevelt progressive wing of the party and the Bernie Sanders social democratic wing of Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, is not new. Which might be the only thing that I agree with Paul Jay and Peter Kuznick on.

There were Socialists in the Democratic Party in the 1930s and the 1940s which was a Dixiecrat party with some Northern Progressives led by Franklin Roosevelt, but there were people even further left than FDR and his wing of the Democratic Party led by Democratic Socialist Henry Wallace who was President Roosevelt's Vice President from 1941-45. But there were also Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrat Democrats who represented the Bible Belt South of the Democratic Party. That fought against desegregation, civil rights laws, and even the New Deal, but supported President Roosevelt's liberal internationalist anti-Communist foreign policy.

The extremely unfortunate assassination of President John Kennedy, is where you see the Democratic Party change. The Democratic Party up until the 1980s or so was never a pure left-wing party that was dominated by Social Democrats. They always had a Far-Left which was made up of Socialists, but they also had a Center-Left of JFK Liberal Democrats and the FDR Progressives. And I mean liberal and progressive both in the classical and real sense. Not the stereotypical sense of someone who believes in big government across the board and doesn't believe in national defense or law enforcement and sees individualism and freedom as dangerous. But liberal and progressive in the sense as people who believe in individual rights, equal rights, and progress.

The 1960s and 1970s is where you see the old Henry Wallace New-Left Socialist wing of the Democratic Party come to life. Thanks to the Baby Boomers growing up and becoming very politically active. And they were so powerful in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s that Senator George McGovern (the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his generation) wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Gets trounced by President Richard Nixon, but that is only because there weren't a lot of Socialists in America back in the early 1970s.

The Democratic Party is exactly that. People who believe in democracy. In some cases that means liberal democracy, the JFK Liberal Democrats which is the wing of the party I'm from. But you also have Democrats who believe in social democracy and democratic socialism. Which is the wing that Bernie Sanders now leads, that Henry Wallace led in the 1940s and George McGovern led in the 1970s. But the Democratic Party has never been a purely liberal democratic party or social democratic party and pre-1960s or so the Democratic Party was a Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate party. Which is one reason why the Democratic Party has always been fairly divided. 

Monday, December 11, 2017

Marilyn Monroe History: Mysteries and Scandals Marilyn Monroe- Her Death in 1962

Source: Marilyn Monroe History-
Source: Marilyn Monroe History: Mysteries and Scandals Marilyn Monroe- Her Death in 1962

I don't believe there is much if any mystery to the death of Marilyn Monroe. Hate to break it to the people who have to believe that there was some suspicious Hollywood like scandal involving the death of one of their Hollywood icons and celebrities. People who believe that John F. Kennedy had ordered the death of Marilyn and perhaps had her pint-size brother Bobby commit the murder himself. The same people who perhaps believe that Lyndon Johnson ordered the death of President Kennedy. Maybe they also believe that LBJ ordered the death of JFK because he wanted Marilyn for himself.

But thats an issue with conspiracy theories they tend not to have a lot of intelligence and reasoning behind him. And tend to be put together by people who simply have too much time on their hands or have a tough time dealing with the real world what the rest of us call Planet Earth and they escape to the planet of Fantasyland where they simply see things that no one else can. And not because they have even better than 20/20 vision or borrowed Superman's supervision. But because they see things that simply don't exist. Their bodies might be on Earth but their minds are on Fantasyland.

You could argue suicide and not sound like someone who just escaped from a mental institution. Marilyn Monroe did have a history of depression and lacked self-confidence. Here's a woman who was 5'5-5'6 who had a great body who cill fill out denim jeans and tight dresses and skirts as well or better than any woman who has ever lived, who had a beautiful body obviously. Who was the hot baby-faced adorable woman with a little girls' personality to match her baby face and yet you have this beautiful hot Los Angeles August Saturday night and she's home alone in her big house. With only her maid as far as any possible company. Which I believe could back any possible suicide theory . Why is this Hollywood goddess home alone on this gorgeous summer Saturday night?

55 years later I still believe the best theory to how and why Marilyn Monroe died during the summer of 1962 was an overdose. Again, she had a history of depression, was a borderline alcoholic if not an alcoholic and was addicted to pain killers. A lot of those pills dealing with the depression that she had. I'm not arguing suicide but when you're drunk you tend to do a lot of stupid things unintentionally. (Not that I'm speaking from personal experience) Especially if you get drunk on a regular basis.

And its very believable that she simply not just drank too much that night but even after having all of that alcohol still wasn't feeling very well and decided that she needed something else to make her feel better. So she turns to pills. Pills and alcohol together, is like fire and gas together. You only put those things together when you want a big explosion. So she's drinking too much and then taking not just pills but too many pills and I still believe the best theory is that she unintentionally overdosed which is what killed her and that she unintentionally killed herself.

People who are going to argue that someone murdered someone else need a better theory than the supposed target has dirt on them that they're about to release which is why the supposed suspect or suspects had their target murdered. You need to at least be able to put a suspect at the place where the supposed target was murdered at the time or about the time that the target died. Again, people who believe that both Jack and Bob Kennedy were involved the death of Marilyn Monroe, perhaps also believe that Lyndon Johnson ordered the death of Jack Kennedy. Lyndon just happening to be the Vice President of the United States when he supposedly had President Kennedy murdered. The same evidence to offer LBJ being behind the death of JFK, is the same evidence that has been offered to support JFK and RFK, being behind the death of Marilyn Monroe. Which is nothing. 

Saturday, December 9, 2017

BBC Newsnight: Emily Maitlis Interviewing Kurt Anderson- On Donald Trump and Fantasyland

Source: BBC News-
Source: BBC Newsnight: Emily Maitlis Interviewing Kurt Anderson- On Donald Trump and Fantasyland

Donald Trump and Fantasyland? Donald Trump is Fantasyland! Donald Trump is the President of Fantasyland! The United Donald of Fantasyland is the country that he presides over where facts don't matter and even exist. "If Donald Trump says it, it must be true." According the citizens of Fantasyland which is a fairly big country. Roughly 60 million people give or take voted for Donald Trump for President in 2016. If there was an amusement park called Fantasyland, Donald Trump would run the place. Well, he would probably just own it and instead hire someone who knows what they're doing run the place for him instead.

About 46% of the vote, voted for Donald Trump for President. Not talking about Lebanon or some other country that might have an authoritarian government but is so small as well as poor that it doesn't represent much if any threat to even its neighbors, let alone people around the world. Fantasyland is a country where everything that Donald Trump says especially about himself, of course is true. Because again we're talking about Fantasyland where everyday is a marijuana high. Where facts don't matter. If Donald Trump had to operate in the real world, take Planet Earth to use as an example, he would fail miserably because he would have to deal with truth all the time. Which is generally bad about him because lack basic human values. Like commonsense, maturity, character, decency, and unfortunately I could go on but I'll spare you.

Albert Einstein once said about the truth that, "whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Donald Trump is a man who can't even admit the simplest mistakes that he's made in life. Like falling asleep one night on his phone when he was in the middle of tweeting something around 2AM. Or claiming that he had the largest crowd size ever for a presidential inauguration with the National Park Service, that was only in charge of the event contradicting the President of the United States hours later.

Donald Trump simply a man because of lack of knowledge as well as honesty, who mentally doesn't operate in the real world. Says and sees things about himself and others that simply aren't there. In some cases he's simply lying, which of course is not uncommon with politicians, but in other cases he simply doesn't know any better.

When you lose touch with reality or simply deny it and Donald Trump who is only the President of the United States unfortunately qualifies on both scores, you can't be trusted. Because you're dishonest and irresponsible. Anyone who trusts a dishonest person is asking to be screwed by that person. "I'm an idiot because I trust you, do your worst to me." And the same goes with an irresponsible man who sees pigs flying in the air, three-million Americans voting illegally with absolutely no evidence to back that up.

I don't enjoy saying these things about the President of the United States and have never been this harsh about any President including President Richard Nixon. But to quote Khaled Hosseini, "better to get hurt by the truth, than comforted with a lie." The only way people can self-improve is to first know where they're at fault. The only way Donald Trump could ever become an even decent President is to operate in the real world. And stop making things up and seeing things that simply don't exist.


Friday, December 8, 2017

Politics and Prose: Alec Baldwin & Kurt Anderson- Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump

Source: Politics and Prose-
Source: Politics and Prose: Alec Baldwin & Kurt Anderson- Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump

If there is one thing that you can give Donald Trump credit for as far as the strength of the American economy, its all the jobs that have been created in the comedy industry simply because of The Donald and his crazy narcissistic irresponsible behavior. George W. Bush, was great for comedy. Bill Clinton, was great for comedy,. Ronald Reagan was great for comedy. Jimmy Carter was great for comedy. But they are all minor players as far as their affects on the comedy industry, in comparison to Donald Trump. They would be like the Toledo Mud Hens in comparison to the Detroit Tigers. One is a AAA minor league club, the Tigers are obviously a major league club.

Alec Baldwin is one of the top and most popular comedians in America now. I've always seen him as a very funny man and someone who was great with wisecracks before. Very similar to Tom Hanks, but now Baldwin is one of the most popular and visible comedians in America simply because he plays President Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live. Which is probably still the most popular comedy show on TV. Donald Trump is obviously not the most popular man in America. I mean to be the most popular man in America with a 32% approval rating, means most of the country is either in a coma or you have a hell of a lot haters in the country who hates practically everybody. Perhaps the average American suffers from depression and hates everything that they see.

But Donald Trump is probably the most visible American in America, if not the world and when he makes an ass out of himself and generally he doesn't go a day without doing that, the comedy industry both right and left and generally left, pick up on that and run with it. And Alec Baldwin has made a new career at literally making fun of and impersonating President Donald Trump. The man should be sending President Trump a Christmas card everyday of the year. Because Trump has been horrible for the country, at least according to his approval ratings and how he's seen around the world, but he's been great for Alec Baldwin and the broader comedy industry.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles: Phyllis and Fred Schlafly- On Good Morning America in 1978

Source: Phyllis Schlafly Eagles- ABC News Anchor David Hartman-
Source: Phyllis Schlafly Eagles: Phyllis and Fred Schlafly- On Good Morning America in 1978

I don't want to make this piece about Roy Moore, but if I had to guess Roy Moore is a big fan and admirer of Fred and Phyllis Schlafly and their family. Man works and makes money, woman stays home and takes care of the kids at least during the day, but man is always in charge and woman is subservient to man. But similar to Ann Coulter Phyllis Schlafly didn't believe everything that she preached at least in the sense that it should cover her as well. She wrote I believe nine books. Had her own political newsletter, ran for public office several times. She was a working woman before she met and then married Fred Schlafly and then became a working woman again in the 1960s during the Counter Culture movement.

You could argue and I believe Phyllis Schlafly is the mother and founder of the Christian-Right wing of the Tea Party movement. People who are economically libertarian, who have blue-collar middle class populist backgrounds, but are so fundamentalist and hardcore with their religious beliefs that their religious beliefs are their politics. Again, the similarity with Roy Moore, Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin. People who are so hardcore with their religious ideology which is what Christian Conservatism is, that they believe that everyone else should live under their religious and cultural values. Even through government force. That women shouldn't even be allowed to vote, let alone work and leave those activities to the men.

Phyllis Schlafly might have been a housewife in an official sense, but she was a right wing political activist who founded the Eagle Forum in the 1960s and spent the last fifty years or more of her life working and not staying home to raise her family. And yet she was the founder a political movement in the late 1960s and 1970s, that protested against the Counter Culture and women's movement of the 1960s and argued that women shouldn't work at all and stay home to raise their kids and be subservient to their husbands.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul & Chris Rossini- Government's Can't Legislate Morality

Source: Ron Paul Liberty Report-
Source: Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul & Chris Rossini- Government's Can't Legislate Morality

I agree with Ron Paul on one thing here. Chris Rossini makes a good point that I'll mention as well. But Representative Paul said that government is one of the last institutions to legislate morality. Why is that? Because government represents and governs the people. Government is only as good as the people they represent. Rarely if ever better and in many cases worst. Americans tend not to avoid paying their taxes and taking bribes. Legislatures who vote for bills because thats what their donors want them to do. But a lot of politicians do and you could argue every politician takes bribes at least in the sense that lobbyists tell them that if they vote for or against this piece of legislation, they'll give them their support. Financial support, as well as their endorsement.

 Its what's called legalized bribery. Joe Jones (or whatever name you want to use) tells Senator Smith or Wilson, that if they vote for or against this legislation, they'll back their reelection campaign financially and verbally. But if a private citizen offers a police officer 20 bucks if they don't write them a ticket, that person could be arrested for attempting to bribe a police officer. If people want a moral government, than they need to vote for moral people to represent them in government and then hold them accountable.

Its easy for anyone to run on morality in a political campaign. But that old cliche of actions speak louder than words, the intelligent person who came up with that quote must of had politicians in mind when they said that. Because behaving in office and actually doing what you campaign on, is hell of a lot different than saying we need morality and I'm in favor of this against that and this is what I'm going to do if you elect or reelect me.

Government is only as good as the people it represents and that is government when its at its best. And there are good moral politicians and I believe most civil servants, as well as law enforcement officers, foreign affairs officers, military personal, as well as a lot of politicians, are generally good people who want to do the right thing. (No, I really believe that) But if government wants a moral society, than they need to set the example and not try to hold the people they're supposed to represent to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves simply because they think they can get away with it and have the power. Because at the end of the day the people always have the power in a liberal democracy. The power to fire politicians who don't do a  good job representing them.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

The Rubin Report: Scott Adams & Dave Rubin- Donald Trump's Persuasion and Presidency

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Is Donald Trump the best salesman we've ever seen in American politics as far as getting people to by what he's selling regardless of the quality of products that he's selling, or is he the best conman we've ever seen in American politics? If you look at his agenda and how unpopular it is and his lack of success in getting anything that he ran on 2016 passed in Congress, he's not a very good salesman.

Running for president and even getting elected President, is obviously a hell of a lot different than doing the job and getting people to support what you're doing. A 33-35% approval rating out of 100% by the way, is not a very good record as far as selling your presidency and your agenda. So in this sense at least he's the worst salesman perhaps we've ever seen in American politics, at least to this point, because only a third of the country is buying what he's doing right now.

Donald Trump literally operates in a fact free world. Its not what the truth actually is that concerns him, because the truth is generally bad about him. Its what he can literally get away with that concerns him. This is why I mentioned the conman part because if the conman literally operated from the truth and told people he has all of this junk to sell you or this scam you should invest in and give the conman most of the money that the customer would never see a dime on and would lose a lot of money instead, the conman would never be successful, obviously. Donald Trump operates in the same fact free world that a conman operates from. Its not the truth thats important, but what he can get away with and what he can get people to believe.

One thing I'll give Donald Trump credit for is that he's a master salesman/conman at getting people who now hate American politics (thanks to the Republican Party and Democratic Party) to buy what he's selling. He's great with labeling people and situations and great with political catch phrases. "Make America great again." Well, if you get past the small point that most Americans including myself already think America is great and thought America was great back in 2008-09 when George W. Bush was still President, who could possibly disagree with that catch phrase. Who doesn't (except for Socialists and Communists) want America to be great?

I agree with Scott Adams on one thing. But I would have one qualifier to that. I believe a popular inspirational well-funded Democrat would have beaten Donald Trump in 2016 just because Trump s Trump and the campaign he ran. Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania and Michigan because Democrats there voted for Trump. Imagine someone with Hillary's personal and professional qualifications, but without the baggage. Who was likable and viewed generally as fairly honest at least. Barack Obama if hr were eligible to run for a third term as President in 2016, I believe beats Trump going away.

What Donald Trump had going for him if that even though America finally broke away from the Great Recession and the economy was firmly strong again, you had millions of blue-collar Caucasian-American voters in the Midwest who weren't feeling the economic recovery. And if anything were worst off than they were ten years ago. Who saw immigration and perhaps even Latinos and Middle Easterners, as a threat to their way of life. Which is the base of voters that Donald Trump spoke to and claimed to represent. Even though just 6-8 years ago Donald Trump was a damn Yankee from New York City and even a Liberal Democrat (in the real sense, not stereotypical sense) who was friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and who liked The Kennedy's.

To go back to the conman part of Donald Trump. Trump was able to sell bag of goods that had probably already expired years ago and was able to sell these people that he represented them and was going to fight for them. And ran this tribalist nationalist campaign of us against them. What they would call the real Americans, against people who hated America, as they would argue. And when you have a section of the country who believes their America is disappearing and your opponent is Hillary Clinton or someone as unpopular as she is and a Democratic Party that rather not vote at all, than to vote for either Hillary or The Donald, a presidential campaign that Trump run can be effective and even win.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin and Scott Adams- Donald Trump's Persuasion and Presidency

Monday, December 4, 2017

Americans United: Rokia Hassanein- Jerry Falwell Jr. Admits That The Religious Right's Support For Donald Trump Is About Power, Not Values

Source: Americans United-
Source: Americans United: Rokia Hassanein- Jerry Falwell Jr. Admits That The Religious Right's Support For Donald Trump is About Power, Not Values

The Religious-Right (Christian-Right, actually) support for a man like Donald Trump is all the evidence that you need to know that this political movement is nothing more than a fraud. This is a moment that self-proclaim's itself being about defending conservative Christian values and what they call American values, and yet they back a man who owns casinos, did business with strip clubs, admits to molesting women, has been divorced twice and cheated on his previous two wives, was pro-choice on abortion up until 2011 or so, a New York City Liberal Democrat, up until 2012 or so, even pro-gay marriage and yet they claim is someone who defends their conservative Christian values. Which of those values is he defending? The divorces, abortion, sexual harassment, gay marriage?

The Christian-Right, at least the hardcore partisans in the movement who seem interested nothing but defeating Democrats at any costs, are a political cult. Religious cult might be too nice for them. They are America's and the West's version of ISIS. They take a religion in Christianity and the Evangelical wing of it and have completely butcher it. And have fooled millions of Southern Anglo-Protestants in America into thinking that they're behind him and back their way of life and defend Christianity everyday. When the only thing that they're doing is backing Republicans who share their fundamentalist theocratic political philosophy.

Jerry Falwell Jr. (the President of Liberty University) support for Donald Trump, is all about politics. It has nothing to do with Christianity and Christian values. Trump wasn't active at all when it came to religion up until a few years ago and can't even quote one line from the Bible. Trump is a Republican and a right-wing Nationalist and Falwell and other members of his movement see his as their ticket to getting right-wing judges appointed and confirmed, as well as getting more right-wing Republicans and so-called Christian-Conservatives elected to office.
Source: The Still Report: Jerry Falwell's Introduction For Donald Trump

Saturday, December 2, 2017

James Michl: The O'Reilly Factor- Glenn Beck Talking To Bill O'Reilly About Newt Gingrich

Source: James Michl-
Source: James Michl: The O'Reilly Factor- Glenn Beck Talking To Bill O'Reilly About Newt Gingrich

I just have a flat disagreement with Glenn Beck on what a Progressive is and also find myself on this weird planet if not universe, where I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I wasn't sure I could agree with Bill O'Reilly about current weather in Miami or how many states are part of the United States, because Bill is wrong about so many things. But he's right about Newt Gingrich at least in the sense that what was a Progressive in the early 20th Century about being someone who is about progress and using government to help create that progress and what's supposed to pass as a Progressive today (like the Cleveland Browns trying to pass as an NFL franchise) , are two completely different things.

According to Glenn Beck a Progressive and a Socialist, are the same thing. Hell, why not add Communist and say being a Communist is the same thing as being a Progressive. Even though most of the Communist ideology is regressive with how authoritarian it is and all the rights and freedom that people would lose if Communists were to some how come into power even though democratic means. Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive. Bernie Sanders, Socialist. The Progressive doesn't want a government dominated society where most if not all of our social benefits and economic security, is provided by government and financed through our taxes. The Democratic Socialist at least, doesn't want government completely in charge of society. But our individual freedom and personal income, would be much more limited if Democratic Socialists were to ever come to power.

Newt Gingrich is obviously not a Libertarian, or a Nationalist, has some things in common with the Christian-Right, but doesn't roll with them on all their policies. Not a Conservative-Libertarian either, but he's a Progressive in a conservative sense. Someone who believes in using government to create progress, but through conservative free market principles. For example, instead of just having people on public assistance just stay there and give them some money, Newt would say that those people should be looking for and getting work, as well as education so they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance at all. As a condition of receiving that taxpayer funded public assistance. With is very different from a Libertarian who says that government shouldn't be involved in public welfare at all. And a Socialist saying that government should guarantee a basic income for everyone with no conditions.

For perhaps the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I don't even drink alcohol, let alone use illegal narcotics but it feels like I'm on some high and seeing things that shouldn't be there. Like Donald Trump being President of the United States. Wait, that actually did happen. But O'Reilly's idea of a Progressive is inline with Teddy Roosevelt's, as well as mine. That progressivism is about progress. That the first eight letters in the word progressive is actually progress. And that being a Socialist is about socialization and using government to solve most if not all the problems in the country. With Glenn Beck believing that Progressive is another word for Socialist. Someone who believes in big government. Even though a Socialist is lot more ideological than a Progressive would actually ever be.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- 'Why We Don't Suck'

Source: Politics and Prose-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I haven't read Denis Leary's book so I can't get you any real analysis of it whatsoever. But I was alive, conscience, and in America, for the entire time in 2016. Except when I wasn't sleeping, which is any longer than the average American sleeps. And I can tell you about Suck Bowl 2016 (which is what I call the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton presidential election) and why it was the worst presidential election we've ever seen.

I voted for Hillary Clinton for president and would do again million straight times, if her opponent is Donald Trump or anyone else who is as unqualified to even be a back benching member of the House of Representatives, let alone President of the United States. Ot is as immature, thin skinned, unread, lacking in intelligence, knowledge, and curiosity about how the U.S. Government works, narcissistic, dishonest, as a Donald Trump or anyone else with those same characteristics. That are the only reasons why I voted for her.

Not because I'm a fan of Hillary Clinton. I basically see her as a well-meaning intelligent person, who wants to do a good job. And if it wasn't for this Thanksgiving grocery shopping list of reasons why I don't like her, I could vote for her because I believe in her and believe she would do a great job. We're talking about a major presidential nominee who has been thinking about being President of the United States, at least since she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, and yet didn't seem to have any vision of why she should be President and what her campaign was about. Other than that she's a well-educated, rich yuppie New Yorker, who is also a feminist and a Democrat. Which is why the rich cool people should vote for her. And that she's also a woman and would be the worst female President of the United States. Well, most of the rich cool people did vote for Hillary and she still lost states that no Democrat has lost since 1988. Pennsylvania and Michigan.

So you have the baggage of Hillary Clinton. Well some of the baggage. How about her lack of candor  and genuineness and ability to make a statement that doesn't sound like it was poll tested or that some who works for her told her to say. Which killed her in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, probably Florida as well, states where she was heavily favored going in. What those voters saw in Donald Trump was at least someone who seems to say what he thinks, at least at the time. Even if he changes his position five minutes later after hearing what Breitbart or some other Far-Right publication or organization thinks about it. But Trump came off as real and says what's on his mind. Instead of someone who seems to say whatever the polls are telling him are popular at the time.

This is why I call the 2016 presidential election Suck Bowl 2016. Perhaps the the two worst presidential candidates you could imagine running against each other. One, who might be a good public servant, but who is a horrible politician at least in the sense that she lacks any ability to communicate a vision for the country and what her presidency would be like and why people should vote for her. Against a natural politician at least in the sense of someone who can bring voters behind him and be able to speak to them. But who is a horrible public servant simply because he doesn't believe in public service. His idea of service is serving himself. And some people are still wondering why Americans at least say they hate American politics and don't like American politicians.
Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- "Why We Don't Suck"

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Mob Video Vault: Spies Among Us- Communists in The United States

Source: Mob Video Vault-
Source: Mob Video Vault: Spies Among Us- Communists in The United States

I hate communism about as much anyone who is not on the Far-Right and not part of some right-wing fascist ideology like nationalism or theocracy, but I love the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly, more than I hate communism. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, America is great and big enough for all sorts of political philosophies and ideologies. From the great ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, that America has been built around. To the fringe and even dangerous ideologies if these people were to ever have real power in America like communism and nationalism.

What makes America great and exceptional, is our diversity and individualism. Not just our racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, but our political diversity. That you can have Socialists like the Bernie Sanders of the world who believe the Federal Government should try to do practically everything for people and have all the tax revenue necessary to pay for all of that big centralized government. To Libertarians on the Right, who believe that government should do practically nothing for anybody. Other than law enforcement, national security and foreign affairs.

As Un-American as communism is with how collectivist, statist, anti-individualist a philosophy that it is, fascism is just as Un-American. When you have right-wing fascists and tribalist's that we have not just in America, but in Congress in the 1940s and 1950s, saying that not only communism is bad for America, but people who have communist and other socialist leanings and beliefs, should be in jail and not be allowed to work simply because they have Far-Left beliefs, you're being just as bad and more dangerous as the Communists. Because you're saying free speech and assembly is dangerous in America, even though it guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And that you should either believe and think like we do, or you should be put in jail or live in the underground of America.

But that is what we had in America in the 1940s and 1950s and had in Congress as well. First with the House Un-American Activities Committee investigation in the 1940s, which was as Un-American as the Communists that they were supposedly investigating. And then later the Senate Investigation Committee investigation led by Senator Joe McCarthy in 1953 and 54. Investigating supposed Communists in the U.S. Government.

Communists on the Far-Left and Christian-Theocrats and Nationalists on the Far-Right, only become a threat to America when they're actually in power. And have no checks on their power and can get away with anything. But short of that they're right to free speech and assembly, is just as strong as anyone else's. As it should be in America and why we are so exceptional because we allow everyone to believe what they believe and even campaign for it.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

If you're a Socialist especially a hardcore Socialist who looks up to people like Che Guevara and even have some respect at least for some aspects of communism, even if you don't like the authoritarian aspects of it, Ayn Rand literally is the devil. Because she represents everything that you hate. Freedom, individualism, free-thinking, the belief that people should actually be able to make a living on their own and not have to be babysat by government.

Because if you are a Socialist who puts all their political eggs in the basket of big government like a wishbone offense in football that if they can't run the ball, they literally can't move the ball, because they have almost no passing game to speak of. And if government can't solve problems, by itself those problems don't get solved according to the Socialist. Because the socialist philosophy of socialism is completely centered not around government or even big government, but big centralized national government. Where even state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, barely exist, because so much power in the country is centralized with the national government.

Because Socialists tend to see freedom as dangerous and individualism as selfish. That if you give people the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs, you're only giving them the freedom to make mistakes that society (which is government, according to the Socialist) will have to pay for. Also, is you give people the freedom  to manage their own affairs, they might become good at it which is what adults tend to do and not need or want government to take care of them and be less incline to have your tax dollars taking care of people who aren't as free as you. Socialists tend to see people who don't think like them at least, if not people in general as idiots. People who need help tying their own shoes and even spelling their own names. Who need big government managing their lives for them.

Socialists also see individualism as selfish. This idea that people can go out in the world and be creative, think for themselves and create new things. Is like trying to explain calculus to a fish. Its so foreign to them and would be like an American who has spent their whole life in America, who only speaks English and one day finds them self in Mongolia. It would be like being on another planet for that person having no idea what people are saying or even what language they're speaking. That is what its like trying to explain freedom and individualism to Socialists. You might have better luck trying to teach your dog to speak Chinese. Because freedom and individualism, completely goes against everything that Socialists have ever believed and have been taught.

As much as the Christian-Right hates feminism and freedom and equal rights for women, as if women are human beings who are capable of making their own decisions and living their own lives and deserving of equal rights as men, thats how much Socialists whether they're democratic or communist, hate Ayn Rand. Because they see her as the devil who represents individualism and freedom. Which to them is as bad as cancer or stealing. It completely goes against what they believe in and what they've been taught as people.
Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?

Source: Chomsky's Philosophy-
Source: Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?

Noam Chomsky is a self-described Socialist and Libertarian-Socialist, no one's moderate or right-winger, making the perfect argument for why even Neo-Nazis and others on the Far-Right in America, deserve free speech rights simply for being American citizens. Even if they're the worst Americans citizens that we have in America.

Professor Chomsky arguing both for practical as well as principal reasons why even Neo-Nazis have free rights in America. The practical reason being that Neo-Nazis could claim that their First Amendment rights are being trampled on an violated if some government authority passed some censorship law banning free speech in their jurisdiction or if the Federal Government attempted to do that and than enforced that law on Neo-Nazis and other Far-Right hate groups. These hate groups could no only claim that, but they would be right. The right to free speech in America, just doesn't protect free speech, but it protects speech. Including speech that offends the oversensitive so-called politically correct (really Far-Left) in America. Or speech that offends the Christian-Right in America. Certain forms of entertainment that offends the Christian-Right's moral and religious values.

The First Amendment-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Supreme Court has made only three exceptions to this.

Inciting violence like yelling fire and calling for a panic in a large crowded public place.

Falsely libeling people and libeling people with no real base or evidence to back up what you're accusing the person of.

And harassement. You can name call people and call them bad names, but once the person moves away from you and makes it clear they don't want to even hear from you, let alone talk to you, but you insist and follow the person around simply to harass them, you could face legal consequences for that if the person presses charges against you, as well as civil charges.

Simply using language that is offensive and even hatful, as well as false against people you hate short of calling for violence against that individual or people, is protected by the First Amendment in the United States. We're all equal citizens in America all having the same constitutional rights and deserve to have those rights equally enforced and protected. From the best of us who work everyday to make America a better country for everyone and who volunteer for people who are disadvantaged and even donate their time and money to people who aren't doing well. To hateful assholes who look down on people simply because they have a different complexion and are of a different racial and ethnic background as the people who hate them.

As Noam Chomsky the way to deal with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups, is to win the argument. Shouldn't be that difficult to do for anyone with even average intelligence. Most Americans or at least a large majority of us, don't hate people or feel superior to other people, simply because they have a different race or ethnicity. If Neo-Nazis want to claim that Africans are animals and not humans and therefor not deserving of the same rights as Europeans, well we all know that Africans are human beings. If the Neo-Nazis want to deny the Jewish Holocaust and genocide in Europe, show people the footage and literature that proves how false those claims are. Simply just show Americans who are young and perhaps don't know any better how stupid these hate groups are simply by showing people what these groups have claimed and people will know how stupid they are. 

Monday, November 27, 2017

Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Source: Skeptic Magazine-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I believe anyone who is a realist and just doesn't call themselves a realist because they have some need to have people believed they're smarter and more advanced than they really are, but literally lives by the attitude or practice of accepting situations for what they are and not over or underplaying things, but seeing everything for what it is based on the best available information at the time, is not just going to be a skeptic but a natural skeptic. As well as one of the least romantic people you'll ever meet. Not a bad person, necessarily but not someone who doesn't have big dreams generally.

A skeptic is Probably not a fan of romantic comedies and certainly not romance novels and not someone you want to spend a day watching a holiday movie marathon of romantic comedies on The Hallmark Channel or some other network. Not someone who is going to say, "dreams really do come true." But instead will be the person that not just tells you what they know and what they're thinking and will kick your butt verbally when you need it because they'll tell you when you screwed up and perhaps tell you how you can fix the problem or problems. They'll tell you what you don't want to hear, because they know its medicine that you need to know to improve yourself.

According to Wikipedia- skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. A skeptic will be the last person who is going to get screwed over by someone or something, because the skeptic doesn't automatically take everything that they hear from someone else at face value. "That person must be telling the truth because they would't hurt me or are not stupid." Really? That might be true but if that person just happens to tell the same thing to a skeptic, the skeptic won't automatically take whatever that person said at face value, especially if what that person said doesn't match up very well with reality. Doesn't match up with the best available facts and evidence on the ground.

I believe skeptics are people who have generally been screwed over by others in the past and simply hate that feeling to the point that they don't want that to happen to them again. So a wealthy man lets say who perhaps isn't the best looking man around who has a history of being involved with beautiful sexy women who later get a lot of money and other property from the man and perhaps even win judgements against the man, that guy especially if they're still a wealthy man even after dating all the gold diggers, will have hopefully have learned their lesson. Especially after already being played by 3-5 gold diggers in the past and will think long and hard about getting involved with another beautiful sexy woman in the future, especially a younger woman and make preparations in the future. Especially if that guy already has kids who are grown up.

Now, someone who doesn't have a history of being screwed over but has been very skeptical all along just from being on Planet Earth especially in America and knowing that there are a lot of Americans who want the truth to be better than it is, as well as having a habit for telling people what they want to know instead of whatever the truth is, that is the person that you want to get to know. Even if you do love romance and even romantic comedies and holiday movies, because you'll always know where that person is emotionally, what they're thinking because they'll tell you. And you'll end up learning a lot from that person. You also might come down with a case of depression,  because a lot of news in the world and what's going on can be tough to hear. But if you're a mentally healthy intelligent person, you'll not only get a lot from that person but be able to handle that information as well.

I'm not saying people should be negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I'm saying they should be real and always live on Planet Earth. Unless they're an astronaut and then I guess there will be times when they leave the real world. But seriously, always know what's going on so you can make the best available decisions and adjustments that you possibly can. The three most valuable tools that any person can have in life are their health, time, and information. Without your health, you really can't do anything and you might not even be conscience anyway. Without time, well you can't do anything either because you're always out of time.

But without valuable credible information even if you're healthy and manage your time well, you're going to make a lot of mistake simply because you don't know what the hell your'e doing. A person that Rachel Bloom might call can asshole. Someone who is skeptical or is a skeptic, will simply make the best decisions they possibly can because they're always operating under the best information. Thats all.
Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Sunday, November 26, 2017

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama

Source: HBO-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I'm not from Alabama and have never even actually spent a day in Alabama, but I get two things out of this story. One, that this behavior (assuming Roy Moore is guilty) is actually normal and if Roy Moore wasn't running for the U.S. Senate, maybe it wouldn't have become news. I mean, you had Republican leaders in that state saying what Moore is accused of are gifts from Good and natural acts. I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty close.

That if Moore wasn't the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate that this story would have never come out. The women wouldn't have come out because no one in Alabama including the media there, would have taken them seriously, let alone bothered to look into the allegations. Once Roy Moore not just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and then won the GOP nomination, is when this story became a national story.

The Senate is part of Congress obviously and a Federal institution and not many people more powerful in the country than a U.S. Senator. And not many institutions covered more closely than Congress, because of how important it is. Which is why you had a Washington Post reporter covering a Alabama Senate race in Alabama and the women going to The Post to talk about their allegations. Now, if Roy Moore was running for State Senate in Alabama representing Gadsden, Alabama, then this story wouldn't be a big deal. Again, we wouldn't have heard from the women because they wouldn't have been taken seriously. And again, to go back to Alabama as a state, this behavior seems to at least be acceptable to the Christian-Right there. Which is more of a religious cult than anything else.

The other thing that I get from the Roy Moore story is that this is Alabama. Anyone left to wonder the Alabama is seen as a backwards redneck neanderthal state that was in a statewide coma during most of the 20th Century and would only come out of their coma to prevent African-Americans from exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. So of course a lot of Alabama is not aware of what has been going on in America in the last ten years or so, let alone the 20th Century, because they still believe America is in a pre-civil war area. And that women should be nothing more than servants to men. So why not teenage girls being servants to men and their sexual needs. At least this is the perception of Alabama and not just for Washington, or New York, or San Francisco, but Atlanta and a lot of the state of Georgia which is a neighbor of Alabama.
HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Glenn Beck: Here's Why ANTIFA is Anti-Trump, Anti-Right, and Anti-Liberal?

Source: Glenn Beck-
Source: Glenn Beck: Here's Why ANTIFA is Anti-Trump, Anti-Right, and Anti-Liberal?

The key term from Glenn Beck's speech is here is that ANTIFA are anti-liberal. Which is what illiberal means and a lot of the people in so-called mainstream media haven't even heard of the word illiberal, let alone knows what it means. An illiberal is someone who opposes liberal values,  especially liberal democratic values. Things like free speech, free assembly, free press, right to privacy, property rights, self-defense, to use as examples. Individualism really in all forms. That everything should be equal and the same for everybody even if people are different and even more productive. And that this so-called equality should be forced on everyone even through force and the government.

ANTIFA calls themselves anti-fascists because they oppose racism and bigotry towards minorities. And yet they use fascist tactics like violence in an attempt to eliminate right-wing fascism and bigotry. Which is hypocritical to put it mildly. It would be like an obese person who goes out of their way to prevent their kids from eating junk food and drinking soft drinks. Because this person says those things aren't good for you which is why you shouldn't eat and drink those products. Someone who is actually and anti-fascist, is actually an anti-fascist. Just like someone who is a Progressive, is actually a Progressive.

You can't say you're an anti-fascist on one hand, while you support fascism on the other hand. Even if you support some fascism because you believe the polices behind it. If you're going to call yourself an anti-fascist, than you better oppose all fascism otherwise you'll lose credibility with anyone who doesn't already support you. Which is what this so-called ANTIFA movement is all about. They're not anti-fascists, but instead oppose right-wing fascism. So at best they're anti-right-wing fascists.

ANTIFA are not even progressive, because they have regressive tendencies and want to go backwards and say people who don't agree with them don't have the same free speech rights as the so-called ANTIFA activists. They're illiberal people on the Far-Right like with the Christian-Theocrats and Christian-Nationalists, and Neo-Nazis, who back Donald Trump. The so-called ANTIFA movement represents fascists illiberal's on the Far-Left.
Glenn Beck: Glenn Beck Daily Show- ANTIFA

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Crash Course: John Green- 1984 by George Orwell- Crash Course Literature

Source: Crash Course-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Under George Orwell, 1984 is a dystopia where everything is in black and white and apparently rainbows don't exist. You can have black or white, water or skim milk, thats it and no other choices. A very depressing state where it's always dark with no light not even street lights or ever flashlights. Sounds like a world for only chronic depressives and bedwetting leftists who are only happy when they're sad. Up is down, water is dry, rocks are soft, fire is cold, ice is hot, Catholics are Muslim, facts don't even exist, let alone matter. Sort of sounds like Donald Trump's head and state of mind. I was going to leave any Trump jokes and personal jokes out of this on Thanksgiving, but I changed my mind.

Part of Orwell 1984 is about big government, big brother, even though George Orwell was a Socialist and at least shared the goals of Democratic Socialists, but didn't like communism. But he envisioned where everyone basically lived in a complete police state where Big Government always knew what everyone was doing and even talking to. See, in a communist state or a theocratic fascist state, there's no such thing as privacy even, let alone a right to privacy and everyone is subjected to the police state where freedom and individualism are not allowed or even exist.

Imagine doing time in a prison that is the size of a major country. Take North Korea, just to use as an example and you'll know what a police state is like. One gigantic national prison where everyone in society is doing hard time. Talk about raising your kids in prison and if watch those famous prison shows on cable, you'll know what I mean because they cover inmates who also have kids and women who've actually given birth in prison.

Orwell 1984 sounds like a great book for people who've swallowed jars of happy pills. Perhaps mistaking them from sleeping pills in an  attempt to commit suicide and now have just shot themselves in the foot twice. They go from being chronically depressed to being too happy and never being able to go to bed because they're so excited all the time about how awesome life is now for them and are given 1984 by a friend which brings them back down to earth from the Planet Galaxy or wherever. And now they're back in the state of mind where they were before about how much life sucks. If I'm ever too happy which as a realist that will be one hell of a goal to try to accomplish, like trying to swim across the Atlantic Ocean with one arm and one leg, I might actually read Orwell 1984 at some point. Or just move to North Korea to see what life is like in a police state.
Crash Course: John Green- 1984 By George Orwell: Crash Course Literature

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

John Stossel: Who Own Your Body?

Source: John Stossel-
Source: John Stossel: Who Owns Your Body?

I'm going to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke on this. I'm very conservative socially in the sense that I live a conservative lifestyle. I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, not even beer for crying out loud. I don't gamble or even go to casinos. And no, I'm not even religious at all so its not because of some strong religious beliefs why I don't do these things. But instead I don't enjoy these activities and I don't like what tobacco and alcohol do to people, I don't want to become a gambling junky who either has collectors constantly on my ass (if not up my ass) or can't pay his bills because I'm out of money and looking for my next big score at some card game.

And no, I would never even contemplate selling by body for sex or buying sex. I rather listen to a Donald Trump marathon of speeches with him telling everybody how fabulous he is and perhaps end up in coma because of how boring those speeches are. But that is just me.

Again to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, just because someone is socially conservative as far as how they live, doesn't mean they believe they have the wisdom and knowledge to run everyone else's lives for them. And be in charge of a national adult day care center telling people when they should go to bed, wake up, eat their meals, what they can eat, who they can talk to and about what and how they talk to people.

Being a social conservative means someone who lives conservatively. Not someone who is so hardcore fundamentalist with their religious beliefs that they believe they know exactly how everyone else should live as well. Even to the point that they would force their religious and cultural beliefs on everyone else though government force. I might be a social conservative when it comes to lifestyle, but I'm a Liberal when it comes to my political beliefs, as someone who bases all his views not just on politics, but everyone else in life based on the best available facts and evidence. My views are based on reason, not faith.

Prostitution like every other activity in life that comes with risk and in prostitution's case a lot of risk as far as the people you work with, go to bed with and the clients you deal with, but like gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, certain plastic surgeries, are things that have been around forever and are never going to disappear. They'll always be with us whether they're legal or not. So the question then becomes what should be done about them.

Do we put people in jail simply because they're personally involved in activities that aren't good for them and as a result create a gigantic nanny state that makes the Communist Republic of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, look like thriving first world liberal democracies, or do we legalize these activities so we can make them as safe as possible and no longer allow people who work in these activities avoid paying the taxes that everyone else hates to pay (except Socialists) but pays, because these workers are involved in illegal dangerous activities . And are obviously afraid to report their income. That is the question when it comes to prostitution or any other dangerous activity in America.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

AlterNet: Opinion- Liz Posner: '8 Things That Are Probably True About You if You Identify As Spiritual But Not Religious'

Source: AlterNet-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

When I hear someone tell me that they're spiritual, but not religious, my first reaction if I'm not smirking is something generally like, "really?"

Someone who is religious believes in a God who is a superhuman controlling power and a belief in something greater than them self.

Someone who is self-described as spiritual, but not religious is someone who believes in the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul, as opposed to material or physical things. Sort of sounds like the definition of a Socialist, but that might be for a different discussion. According to Wikipedia the term spirituality originally developed within early Christianity.

Someone who is religious is also spiritual. I mean, what do you think houses of worship are for. You could be someone who practices a certain religion but doesn't believe in God or is simply neutral when it comes to God like an Agnostic and be spiritual in that way. There's this growing movement with young people (meaning Millennial's) who don't want to be religious or at least seen as religious with people they hangout with or respect, because they believe those people will think they're not cool or something, but they also don't want to be identified as Atheists either. So they try to thread the needle (so to speak) and self-identify as spiritual.

Spirituality is very common and popular with hipsters especially in Hollywood who believe religion is not cool, or at least their followers believe religion is not cool, but they're not comfortable identifying themselves as Atheists, because they come from religious families or perhaps just don't want to be known as an Atheist. In case it isn't obvious, Hollywood is about perception and not reality. Style over substance, which is something that they have in common with politicians.

If someone tells me they're an Atheist, I can respect that. I mean really, who can honestly actually say they've seen God before, let alone met the man. I mean, we don't see any sightings of Jesus Christ, or Moses, or Allah, except maybe around Halloween.

Its the fundamentalist Atheists who I have a problem with who look down upon people who are religious simply because they're religious. Or the faux Atheists who claim to be Atheists, but only critique Christianity especially fundamentalist Protestant Christianity because of hard-core stances that Evangelicals take on social issues and bigotry that they show against gays and other religions, women's place in the world, but never critique other religions that have similar, if not identical stances on the same issues.

Or so-called Atheists who label people as bigots even when they accurately critique Muslims for their regressive views on the same social issues that Evangelicals are known for having. And of course I'm talking about how the so-called politically correct Far-Left went after Bill Maher a few years ago for his stances against Islam. Bill Maher is a real Atheist and doesn't just call himself to sound cool with hipsters.

I'm an Agnostic myself simply because I don't know if there is a God or not. As a Liberal I base all my political beliefs as well as non-political beliefs on reason, evidence, and facts. Instead of having faith in some so-called higher being who supposedly always has my best interest at heart. Even though I never met this supposed person. And I'm someone who tends to not have faith in things or people, unless there's good reason and evidence to have faith. But just because you don't know that there is a God, doesn't mean you know there isn't a God. Which is where I separate from Atheists.

A big problem with America especially with young people (I know I sound like a grandfather now) is faddism. This need to be seen following whatever the current trend is especially with whatever fad young cool people are following. If walking down the street or showing up to work wearing nothing but a t-shirt, underwear, and cowboy boots, became a regular thing with whoever the current hot celebrities are supposed to be, you would see thousands if not millions of young Americans doing the same thing. And we would probably see a spike in the unemployment rate as a result, at least with young adults, because those people would get fired right on the spot for completely breaking the company dress code. Spirituality along with Scientology, is a Hollywood hipster fad and when its no longer seen as cool is when it will disappear. But not a movement that I respect or even take seriously.
Source: Koi Fresco: Religion Vs. Spirituality