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

Saturday, September 30, 2017

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- New Rule: Liberal States Rights

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Bill Maher is right about at least one thing that people on the Right including Conservatives, but people who are much further right than that and people who I call Neo-Confederates who believe that the wrong side won the American Civil War, who are Southern Nationalists, back in the day argued for what they call states rights. Which essentially means that the Southeast or Bible Belt knows what's best for them and dem damn Yankees in Washington need to but the hell out and mind their own damn business.

Back in the day the Democratic Party controlled most of the power in the country. The thing was those the Democratic Party wasn't really a progressive or conservative party.

They had a Far-Left people who would be called Socialists today the Henry Wallace wing of the party.

They had a progressive Center-Left with that Robert Kennedy represented.

They had a Center-Right that people like Lloyd Bentsen represented, who served in the Congress for a long time and was Mike Dukakis's vice presidential nominee in 1988.

But the Democratic Party also had a Far-Right. Neo-Confederarate Southern Nationalists, who again believe the wrong side won the American Civil War and that if European-Americans especially Anglo-Protestants can't treat African-Americans like slaves, they should at least be able to treat them like second-class citizens under law and not have to give them full-citizenship. Which is why we had a civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

I'm a what I at least call a liberal-federalist and as a true Liberal I'm not comfortable with large centralized authorities and establishments. One of the basic liberal values is decentralization of authority and spreading the power out and not comfortable with top-down management styles including from government. And that the basic role of the Federal Government is to protect the country from foreign invaders, as well as terrorists and criminals who operate in multiple states. As well as enforcing the U.S. Constitution.

That the states should be able to manage their own affairs as long as they are within the Constitution. Which means not having different laws, access and justice for different Americans. Which is why we have Federal civil rights laws. And most importantly that the power be with the people themselves so they can manage their own affairs as long as they aren't hurting innocent people.

So if California wants strict environmental laws even if those laws give them high energy prices, those laws are their business. If Texas wants private school choice and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize secular private schools, thats their business. Just as long as California, Texas, and every other state in the union are within the Constitution. That they don't pass laws that benefit one race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, over another. Or try to create their own military, currency, foreign policy, etc, anything else that would succeed their authority that should be handled by the Federal Government.

What Bill Maher was getting at with his impression of a Dixiecrat from back in the day,  (Dixiecrat-right wing Southern Democrat) was sort of what I was talking about earlier that the Federal Government dem damn Yankees (as right wing Southerners would call people up North) should stay the hell out of the business of the Bible Belt states and let those states run their own affairs as they see fit. Even if that means having separate and unequal laws and access for European and African-Americans.

Now go up fifty years with the Republican Party which is now has a large faction for former Dixiecrats now Dixie Republicans and now has most of the governmental power in the country with the White House, complete control of Congress, 34 governorships and as solid majority of state legislatures. The Tea Party Nationalist wing of the Republican Party is no longer talking so much about federalism and states rights.

The Far-Right of the Republican Party with all of this power with controlling both the House, Senate, Justice Department, Supreme Court, now believe they can force every state and locality in the nation to govern like them. And force their political and cultural values on the rest of the country. States rights and federalism now to the Dixie wing of the Republican Party, means you can govern yourselves anyway you want, just as long as they approve of what you're doing.

If California wants strict environmental laws, the Trump Administration will challenge those laws in court and saying California doesn't have the authority to do this and environmental laws are for the Federal Government to decide. If Colorado wants legalize marijuana which they passed a few years ago, the Trump Administration will challenge that law in court and argue that marijuana is a Federal issue and not for the states to decide.

Sort of like someone arguing on the Right who is a Religious-Conservtaive who says they believe in individual freedom. But what they really believe in is that people should have the freedom to live the way that Religious Conservatives approve of. But not necessarily have the freedom to make their own decisions. Or someone on the Far-Left who claims to be Pro-Choice. But what they really believe in is that people should have the right to make choices that the Far-Left approves of.

Federalism or states rights, is exactly that. What good is freedom if you can't make your own decisions? Just because the Federal Government doesn't believe in environmental laws, private school choice, marijuana legalization, and I could go down the line and if I didn't have a life maybe I would, but you get the idea, but just because the Feds might not believe in these things why should they be able to force their values on every other state in the nation.

The whole point of a Federal Republic is that when you have large diverse country which is what America certainly is what might work in one part of the country, might not be approved of or work in another part of the country. Which is why you have a Federal Government there to handle the national issues and leave the states and localities to deal with their state and local issues. Again, as long as all three levels of government are within their authority under the U.S. Constitution. Instead of Big Uncle Sammy getting to decide what everyone should think, how everyone should live, how everyone should govern, as if they're some big over-paternalistic Communist or something.
HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- New Rule: Liberal States Rights

Friday, September 29, 2017

Fix The Debt: 6 Things That Congress Should Do As It Considers The Federal Budget & Government Spending

Source: Fix The Debt-
Source: Fix The Debt: 6 Things That Congress Should Do As It Considers The Federal Budget & Government Spending

"The Fix the Debt Campaign is bringing together Americans from all walks of life and from across the country to get the national debt under control. Learn more and join us."

What Fix The Debt really only offers here are goals that they would like to see accomplished in the next Federal budget that Congress passes and the President signs. Which may happen as soon as 2050 since Congress no longer passes budgets The the last budget that Congress passed was in 2006. What they do instead is pass some appropriations bills and generally its real just the House that passes any appropriations bills. And September comes along which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since September is an annual event in America and Congress realizes that the Federal Government funding is about to run out and decides to pass a short-term spending bill keeping the entire government running until the end of the year generally.

It use to be better than this when Congress would pass an omnibus bill generally in December that would fund the entire government until the following September. Omnibus bills are one appropriation bill passed by Congress instead of all 13 bills and passed instead of a budget. They're not as good as a budget that comes with appropriations bills later on, but are certainly better than running a Federal Government with a four-trillion-dollar budget and without around five-million employees three or four months at a time. Better for the workers and better for the economy, because investors don't have to worry about government shutdowns as much and the negative impact they have on the economy.

The only real solution that Fix The Debt offers here and I doubt the author of this article is actually named Fix The Debt, I mean that is no name for a real human being, but no name for the author is given here, but all they talk about is Congress should pass a budget. Pass a budget that puts us on path to reducing the national deb. And then they offer only one real solution in their article which is called PAYGO. Which is a wonky eggheaded term that in American English means pay as you go.

Makes sense right, is you're going to purchase something pay for it instead of running up big credit card bills that you can't pay back or writing checks that bounce like fully pumped basketballs that are slammed on a highway. But Congress doesn't operate in the real world. They operate in the world of political bases and political contributions. And tend to see their number one job is to get reelected. Especially if they're in the leadership of the major party in the House and Senate and don't want to lose their majority during the next election. Or if they're in the leadership in the minority party they tend to see their number one job is to not only get reelected but add to their membership and win back the House or Senate.

So as long as Congress functions on short-term spending bills and the only real deadline they care about are their primary elections and election days, we'll never see any real solutions to addressing the big deficit of six-hundred-billion dollars and the national debt of twenty-trillion-dollars. Because addressing these issues will cost political capital and support. Because it will mean addressing entitlements, the defense budget, the tax code, emergency spending like disaster relief, and our public assistance anti-poverty programs so we have fewer Americans living and working in poverty and more Americans working and paying payroll and Federal income taxes.

But if you're looking for real solutions that might happen at some point in the future, or more realistically could happen in the short-term, I believe PAYGO and disaster relief reform might be the only things that could pass both the House and Senate and get signed by President Trump. Applying PAYGO to disaster relief and the defense budget. No more waiting until the hurricane season in the late summer to realize that we may need a lot of money to pay for that cleanup and help people be able to get back to their lives. With Congress passing a disaster relief package of somewhere around 50-100 billion dollars that of course is put on the national credit card. (Another way of saying national debt)

But instead showing some common sense (almost as rare as July snow in Los Angeles, in Congress) and knowing that August and September are annual events in America and are hurricane season in the Southeast, as well as the Southwest in Texas with all the heat and humidity and that this is a region that will probably get hit by at least one storm and that it could be a major storm and that this region is probably going to need a lost of assistance to handle any recovery that might be needed. And again, to go back to the need for the Federal budget that the Administration and Congress should plan for these events upfront and pay for them upfront.

We need a natural disaster fund in America that should be paid for by the people who receive that assistance when their property is hit by one of these major storms and need financial assistance in order to recover from it. People who live in higher risk areas should pay more for this insurance because they'll get more assistance when they are hit by a storm or some other natural disaster. This would save the Federal Government 20, 50, perhaps even 100 billion dollars or more each year, as well as taxpayers because the Feds would no longer have to borrow to pay for disaster relief and taxpayers would have less interest to pay back on the national debt when they make purchases.

A fully functioning PAYGO that is tied to the entire Federal budget whether its disaster relief, as well as the defense budget and increases to all parts of the Federal budget including invasions, humanitarian relief efforts that are Defense Department are involved in, repairing and building new bases, alone won't fix the deficit and the national debt. We really need a comprehensive approach here that deals with the tax code, entitlements, poverty assistance, as well as defense and disaster relief. But it would be a good step forward and tell the markets and Wall Street that the U.S. Government is finally serious about the national debt and sees it as a national priority and at the very least will stop asking to the problem that it created.
Source: Crash Course

Crash Course: Adrienne Hill & Jacob Clifford- Deficits & Debts

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Movie Documentary: A&E Biography- Yvonne De Carlo

Source: Movie Documentary- Clark Gable & Yvonne De Carlo-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Yvonne De Carlo at least to me represents the total package when it comes to actresses and entertainers. After you get through her mesmerizing first impression of this beautiful baby-faced adorable Italian brunette, with a great shape, you also see a very intelligent woman with a great sense of humor and great dramatic ability as well. Her most famous role is probably as the mother on Adams Family, but she did so much before that.

Similar to Susan Hayward she's a women who didn't come from much with her father not in the picture and with a mother who didn't seem have much interest in raising her. Susan Hayward's issues with her parents were that they were poor and had to raise their kids in poverty. With Yvonne's family it was being born to father who wasn't around and a mother who wasn't ready to raise her. And yet by 1943 Yvonne gets her first break as an actress in the movie The Deerslayer starting a great career as a movie as well as TV actress and doing comedy, drama and dramatic comedy.

 I believe I would put Yvonne De Carlo on the dramatic/comedy side when it comes to great actors and actresses. Similar to Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, Yvonne De Carlo, and many others. An actress who was very good at both comedy and drama, but even better when those genres were combined, When you would have a great drama with a lot of funny people in it with a lot of lets say sarcasm and flipped lines. And perhaps having funny actors and entertainers who would add their own material and improvise with their own expressions making their characters even more entertaining and funny.

Cary Grant perhaps is the master of dramatic comedy which is why he worked so well with Alfred Hitchcock because he loved dramatic comedy and had a real knack for it. Yvonne was an actress who would have been a great soap actress both on TV and in the movies because she was so good at delivering clever lines, putting people down, but doing it in a funny, honest, entertaining way, that didn't make her seem mean.

I haven't seen all of Yvonne De Carlo's movies and have only gotten more familiar with her career in the last two years or so, but if you are interested in see some good Yvonne movies, I would suggest Death of a Scoundrel where she plays the executive investment of a business investor played George Sanders who really was a scoundrel, but speaking of dramatic comedy you almost have to like at least parts of the Clementi Sabourin character (played by George Sanders) with Yvonne's character there to keep the man honest and in check. They work really well in the movie and it almost seems like the Yvonne character hates Clementi in the movie and yet is never able to leave him until the end because there's something about him that she loves and not just the money he pays her.

Yvonne to me represents a actress that again was simply the total package as an actress. Great to look, great to listen to, but she was also a great actress and incredibly entertaining. Someone with style and substance who didn't have low self-esteem issues because she knew who she was and how good she was. Who didn't get picked up off the street by some agent or director because she had a great face or figure and then they make a project out of her and try to make her into at an acceptable actress. But someone who came from nothing and did the work to make herself a great actress. Who also happened to be beautiful, adorable, with a beautiful body as well. And represents Old Hollywood when substance was rated higher in style and where you had to be able to do the work and do it well to succeed in Hollywood and where physical looks weren't simply good enough.
Movie Documentary: A&E Biography- Yvonne De Carlo

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Reason: Opinion- Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin: Hey Libertarians For Donald Trump, How Much More Winning Can You Take?

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason: Opinion- Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin: Hey Libertarians For Donald Trump, How Much More Winning Can You Take? 

I believe to understand why some so-called Libertarians support Donald Trump in 2016 and still do today, you have to understand libertarianism and libertarian society. You also have to understand the anti-Hillary Clinton movement which includes the Far-Left and Bernie Sanders socialist movement. The Far-Right nationalist and Christian-Conservative theocratic movement. But the Libertarian-Right and the fringe movement on the Libertarian-Right. 

Not all and perhaps most Libertarians aren't fringe and I have a lot of respect for true Libertarians especially Conservative-Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul and Liberal-Libertarians like Governor Gary Johnson. But there is a fringe libertarian movement that is highly conspiratorial (just like Donald Trump) and sees any evidence and information that contradicts their beliefs as some type of either government conspiracy or leftist conspiracy. 

By the way, the nationalist movement, the Britbart's and others who still back Donald Trump and his supporters in Congress, are also conspiratorial. You have a movement on the Far-Right and fringe Libertarian-Right that sees Hilary Clinton as nothing but the devil. As some radical feminist Marxist-Communist from the 1960s, who would ruin America by forcing her form of anti-male (especially Caucasian male) radical feminism, as well as Atheism on the country. And put radical feminists in charge of everything and try to completely outlaw all forms of individualism. Even if that individualism comes from women. And then add the fact that Hillary Clinton is hawk on a lot of foreign policy and national security issues, adds to why fringe so-called Libertarians absolutely hate the woman. 

The Far-Left hates Hillary because she's a hawk, but she's also not a Socialist and has no issues with being successful and wealthy and everything else that Socialists hate about America and American capitalism. But the fringe so-called Libertarians are the same people who believe John Kennedy was murdered by the CIA. That 9/11 was an inside job. That President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, because Saddam Hussein ordered George W. father H.W. Bush to be murdered and to steal Iraq's oil.

So of course Trumpian cult followers are going to believe Donald Trump when he says that Russia didn't try to interfere with our elections in 2016, because they see that as some made up government conspiracy by our National Security State. Donald Trump represents to them the anti-establishment. People who hate Washington and the people who work there, especially for the Federal Government. That is why these so-called Libertarians (cult followers is more accurate) are backing Donald Trump so heavily. Because he's the leader of their anti-establishment political cult. 

That is why you have Kristin Tate who up until just two years ago was an actual Libertarian, say she has to put aside her libertarian views to support Donald Trump. Why Wayne Allyn Root backs everything that Donald Trump does and always has a reason for it and that reason being that if Donald Trump believes its the right thing to do, than it must be true. Whether its bombing Syria in the same of protecting human life, trying to ban Muslims from coming into the country which violates freedom of religion. Labeling Mexicans as racists, or saying there are fine people in the racist Alt-Right Neo-Nazi movement. 

These Trumpian cult followers and this is going to sound harsh, but I really believe this, but they remind me of the Manson Family from the late 1960s. Who when ordered to commit those murders essentially said this must be the right thing to do because their leader Charles Manson says it is. Which of course sounds crazy but there's not exactly a surplus of sanity around when you're talking about fringes whether they're on the Far-Right or Far-Left. "Donald Trump believes its the right thing to do, so it must be. Besides, he's not Hillary Clinton so it must be okay." Which to me sounds like the attitude of the Donald Trump cult followers and why these so-called Libertarians support Donald Trump. 

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Newsweek: Opinion- David Friend: Before Donald Trump Was President, Online Sex Videos, Bill Clinton & The Naughty 90s Changed America

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

Now that I think about it and this Newsweek article that was written by David Friend contributed to it and even though he didn't argue this himself, but the more I think about it the 1990s is the decade when Liberals won the Cultural War. Because there was one scandal after another both in politics and government, but in entertainment as well and yet America survived it and we prospered so much as a country in that decade with the end of the Cold War and the economic boom of that decade thanks to new trade, new technology, the deficit coming down and actually leading to a balanced budget by 1998. (Ask a Millennial what a balanced budget is and they'll tell you its a budget where everything is spent equally, because they've never seen one before) And a lot of Americans perhaps especially my Generation X, but Baby Boomers decided as a generation and country that its OK.

So what if a politician sleeps with women they're not married to and cheats on their wives. Thats bad for their wives and their children, but that doesn't affect me and its not my business anyway. Which I believe was the attitude about all of these scandals where it didn't involve people actually getting physically hurt or falsely accused. We go from the King of Tabloids who was Donald Trump (yes, the same man) in New York and all of his affairs with other women when he was married with kids at the time, to Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas who just happened to be running for President in 1991-92 and one famous affair that he had in that time period of the late 1980s and early 1990s with Gennifer Flowers.

To entertainment celebrities like Tommy Lee (from Motley Crew) and actress Pam Anderson and they having their sexual affair literally in public and making a video about it. O.J. Simpson was a real true crime story with two real murders involved and in that sense at least was a real story with real significance. Ao in that extent at least it was a serious story. But it was a tabloid story because of the main character involved, the other serious characters involved and where the story took place which was Los Angeles.

But go from the mid 1990s to the late 1990s and again with Bill Clinton who in many ways was a Hollywood character the John F. Kennedy with the cameras always on him with reporters writing down everything they hear and find out about him, but  then reporting it, unlike with JFK. With the Jack Stanton character from the movie Primary Colors (played by John Travolta) almost seeming too real. To Bill Clinton's last sex scandal from the 1990s involving him and a White House intern in Monica Lewinsky who is only two years older than me and 27 years younger than Bill Clinton obviously young enough to be his daughter.

But if that doesn't seem to be a big enough Hollywood story for you, how about the Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich who made it a priority of his to remove President Bill Clinton from the White House (one way or another) and was President Clinton's biggest critic of the 1990s, as well as one of his best partners as far as the legislation they were able to pass together in that divided government and continually bashed the President as being immoral for his sex scandals especially the Lewinsky scandal, gets caught having an affair with his secretary while he was married to another women. Newt Gingrich winning the title of Hypocrite in-chief. He closest he would ever come to being President.

America goes through all these scandals, the Christian-Right in America which has had more of their own share of sex scandals and other scandals in America (Jim Bakker, Jim Swaggart, etc) and yet they reach their highest point in America as far as political power and having a veto voice inside the Republican Party as far as where they have to be politically and get to decide its presidential nominees. The Republican Party wins complete control of Congress of 1994 winning back the House for the first time since 1953 which they would hold onto until 2007 and win back the Senate in 1994 that they would hold onto until 2001. Plus the GOP would hold at least 30 governorships and a majority of state legislatures in the mid and late 1990s and would hold all of that power other than losing the Senate in 2001 and win back the presidency in 2001, until the late 2000s when Democrats finally won back the House and Senate in 2006.

With all of this political power moving to the Right and even Far-Right in the 1990s, Americans as a people and I believe with Generation X completely coming of age in the 1990s being a big factor of this, we essentially decided as a country, so what! So what if free adults have consensual affairs with people other than their spouses. Thats a matter between them and their families. Not something that should be decided by government certainly and shouldn't cost people their jobs even in public office simply because they're in loyal spouses.

I believe the 1990s gave rise to gay rights movement of the 2000s, and movements that opposed the War on Drugs, privacy thanks to the War on Terror in the 2000s, becoming a big issue and concern with the belief that government was becoming big government in our personal lives. The Culture War was ending in the 1990s because of everything that we went through as a country and people being able to see all of these individual scandals that in the 1950s would have ruined most Americans if those scandals were made public and in many cases people would have faced serious legal consequences for them even if they were private and consensual.

Americans saw these scandals and saw a lot of people behaving badly and irresponsibly, but deciding that those affairs aren't mind and people weren't getting hurt physically, financially, or being falsely libeled because of what someone did to them, this is not something that I should be personally concern with. And just let the people who were affected by this personal behavior decide for themselves what and if should be done about it. Instead of big government stepping in.
Source: Watch Mojo- OJ, WJC & CK

Watch Mojo: Top 10 Defining Moments of 1990s America

Monday, September 25, 2017

Brookings Institution: FixGov- Dana Goldman: Why Bernie Sander's Plan For Universal Health Care Is Only Half Right

Source: Brookings Institution-
Source: Brookings Institution: FixGov- Dana Goldman: Why Bernie Sanders's Plan For Universal Health Care Is Only Half Right

Actually, I believe Dana Goldman is being generous here and giving Senator Bernie Sanders too much credit here. I don't believe Senator Sanders is even half right and is selling his supporters a Mercedes for the cost of a Ford Escort and telling them that he'll get back to them as far as how much the Mercedes really cost later on. Leaving his supporters with hopes of buying a Mercedes with only the budget of an Escort.

The problem with a Mercedes health care plan is that is cost as much as a Mercedes. If you're looking at a Mercedes SEL or sports car, you're talking about eighty thousand dollars or more. If you're a young public school teacher just starting out, you might only be able to afford the Ford Escort economy car. Luxury cars are expensive for most Americans and so are great health care plans. Even Senator Sanders is now acknowledging that his so-called free universal Medicare For All health care plan is not free.

Why? Because it would be run by government. Who funds government? The taxpayers that consume its services. How do taxpayers pay for government services? Through taxation and that includes from their annual income, as well as payroll taxes that comes out of their paychecks. Whether you're new public school teacher making 25-30 thousand dollars a year, driving a Ford Escort or another economy car. Or corporate lawyer or crooked politician making 500 hundred thousand dollars a year driving a Mercedes SEL or perhaps a Jaguar, or another great luxury car. The Sanders's Medicare For All plan comes with deep costs and they have no idea to pay for it.

And you would be talking about a Medicare For All budget assuming you're completely eliminating all private health insurance companies, as well as Medicaid, Tri-Care, the Federal civil service health insurance program, and all state health insurance programs, you would be talking about an annual Medicare budget of over three-trillion-dollars, to go on top of the already four-trillion-dollar U.S. Government budget. There's no free health care for anyone who pays taxes. Which means the Medicare For All supporters would have to come up with the finances to pay for it.

And if that is not depressing enough I only covered the costs of a Medicare For All plan and the fact that their supporters don't have a damn clue how to pay for it. Other than saying, "well, if we can borrow trillions of dollars to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can do that to guarantee health care for everyone." Which at best is a sophomoric answer. Which is like saying, "hey if Billy can skip cool and shoplift, how come I can't and have to go to go to school everyday?." Not exactly an example that you want to teach people.

But how about the other big problem dealing with completely eliminating competition in the health insurance system and completely putting the U.S. Government in charge of the health insurance for 320 million Americans. We've already seen the problem with the Veteran Affairs Administration when you put the one agency in charge of not just the health insurance for everyone, but their complete health care as well.

Which is military veterans not able to get needed health care because their hospitals are overcrowded or live hundreds of miles from the nearest VA hospital. Which is why Congress and the Obama Administration reformed the VA in 2014 and now veterans can get health care at private hospitals at least, leaving taxpayers to pick up the costs of their health care that these veterans have earned by serving their country.

The VA example is really the only example you need to know why government shouldn't be in complete control of the health insurance for a country of 320 million people at least. Socialism is just not the answer here because government is no bureaucratic and moves so slowly with the executive not being able to reform themselves quickly and keep up with the times without the approval of Congress. And Congress which always has their eye on the next election and always keeping their eyes on their donors and making sure they're pleasing them and only being able to move when it helps them politically.

The U.S. Government doesn't respond to competition because it doesn't have any in America. In theory they can do whatever they want and don't even have to meet a budget. Private organizations obviously don't have have that luxury and have to stay within their budgets and be able to adapt and deliver the best and most affordable services that they can. Or they'll lose to the competition. Which is why you want competition in the health insurance market and you want to keep that market and if anything expand that market and give people other options to pay for their health insurance.

Like Medicare option and not just having Medicare for our oldest and unhealthiest Americans. That could be run by the states and not adding to the Federal budget. As well as health savings accounts including for low-income workers which would add even more competition to the health insurance market.

So, other than the costs of a Medicare For All plan other than their supporters seeming to believe that we can borrow three-trillion-dollars a years and put it on the national debt, which would actually be more expensive than what we borrowed for Afghanistan and Iraq, at least annually. Or than having rich people not only fund their own health care and health insurance, but forcing them to pay for everyone else's even for people who can afford health insurance and health care and that the U.S. Government would be in complete control of everyone's health insurance in a country of three-hundred and twenty-million people, without the money to pay for it other than deep borrowing and expecting wealthy people to cover the other costs and forgetting that rich people can simply escape taxes by moving their money to other countries, you might actually have to like the Sanders's Medicare For All Plan. At least the idealistic romance novel side of it. Free health care for everyone. Who would be against that. But again, so such thing as a free lunch for people who buy that food. No such thing as free health care for people who consume that health care.
Source: TYT

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Dore & Ron Placone- Bernie Sanders Medicare- For All Bill Explained

Saturday, September 23, 2017

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- J Edgar Hoover, Chelsea Manning & PC Colleges

Source: HBO- Bill Maher, Tim Gunn & Brett Stephens-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

As far as J Edgar Hoover, I don't know how I can talk about him without being accused of the homophobe or some liberal elitist to the Christian-Right because they still can't live with the fact that Edgar Hoover was gay and are still living in denial about it. So I might as well just jump into the discussion about talk about Edgar Hoover and his homosexuality.

To me Hoover represents to what would be faux heroes in America and people who live with bipolar political personalities.  In public Hoover was a hard-core cultural warrior Nationalist who stood up for everything that the nationalist tribalist Right stood for in America. English Protestant Christianity with this fundamentalist religious view of the world as far as who the real Americans are and tried to route out people that the Far-Right sees as the Un-Americans.

First it was Hoover, then it was Joe McCarthy, later Richard Nixon voters, followed by people would be identified as the Christian-Right in America by the late 1970s. Who are Far-Right religious voters who vote based on their religious beliefs and base their politics on their religious beliefs. Even if that interferes with a little sometimes annoying document called the U.S. Constitution. This is the political faction that Sarah Palin represents that voted for and overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump today. So this would be the public Edgar Hoover.

The private Hoover was the King of Queens. (Or is that the Queen of Queens) This openly homosexual man who you would think was the President of the Castro District in San Francisco. Who not only crossdressed but who would treat his boyfriends like they were his girlfriends. And would be treated like a girlfriend by his boyfriends. Crossdressed, spoke with a high feminine voice in private. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to quote Jerry Seinfeld. The public Edgar Hoover was everything that the Far-Right loves. The private Hoover was someone who they believe represents almost everything they hate about America.

As far as Chelea Manning. If we can have openly sexist and homophobic speakers who talk about Latino immigration as the browning of America (to quote Ann Coulter) who speaks at universities on a regular basis, I don't see why we can't have a transgender ex-Marine who fought for their country in Chelsea Manning's case speak at Harvard. Political correctness and fascism on campus and in America is put down a lot as it should and this blog has contributed to that.

But generally that comes from the Far-Left as far as people who hate anything that offends the Far-Left to the point they feel the need to not just shut up anything and anyone that offends them. But in some cases like with this so-called ANTIFA movement they'll physically attack people who offend them. Trying to shut up Chelsea Manning because she was convicted and served time in prison for releasing classified information and of course for being transgender, is political correctness and fascism from the Far-Right in America. The Sarah Palin/Donald Trump movement.

I just covered political correctness but I did it from the Far-Right. As the panel was saying college is not supposed to be a safe space, at least a safe space when it comes to ideas and politics. But a place to learn and grow, develop, hear things that you haven't heard before even if they offend you. If you want to be at a place where everyone looks, talks, and thinks like you, college is not the place for you. And instead perhaps just spend all of your time at coffee houses drinking lattes all day and learn about the world from your laptop and i-phone. Where people in their 30s might seem like old dinosaurs to you.

I was going to let that Fran Lebowitz comment go about the only real city in America in her view is New York and Chicago. But I don't think I should since Hillary Clinton is the news a lot recently and represents that elitist thinking that everything that is great in America is in New York. And the rest of of us are uneducated fools who don't know how the real world works. That kind of thinking is why Hillary Clinton wrote a book about why she lost the 2016 presidential election. Instead of being too busy to write a book other than maybe her daily diary, because she has an administration to run as President of the United States.

Those blue-collar Democrats who voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly in 2012 and 2008. Because Barack Obama even with his wine and cheese yuppie Democrat personality, could connect to average Joe and Jane voters in America. And didn't expect people to vote for him because of his last name and that he was a Democrat. Or they wanted to vote for the first African-American President of the United States. Hillary expect even blue-collar Democrats to vote for her, because she's Hillary Clinton and she wanted to be the first female President of the United States.
HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- J Edgar Hoover, Chelsea Manning & PC Colleges

Friday, September 22, 2017

Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic

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

I don't have much to offer about the movie High Noon, as least the original one from 1952. I did however see a movie with the same title from the Lifetime Network (of all places) in I believe 2009. But that is not what this piece is about. (Thank God!) Not a good movie and not trying to cure anyone's insomnia by talking about the second High Noon movie. Not a good movie and not even very believable.

What I'm knowledgeable about and have read about and seen some documentaries about, is The Hollywood Blacklist from the 1940s and 1950s. Where workers out in the Hollywood industry who actually were Socialists and in some cases even Communists and even supported Communist Russia back then (known as the Soviet Union) but weren't criminals and didn't even have official relationships with the Soviet Government in Russia. They were simply on trial for their far-left political beliefs by crooked politicians in Congress who were simply trying to take advantage of the Red Scare and the start of the Cold War between America and Europe, against Russia and their allies in the East.

Hollywood professionals like writer Dalton Trumbo which there was a good movie made about him that came out in 2015 simply called Trumbo, were hauled in front of Congress at the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee simply because of their political beliefs. Not for any laws that they might have broken. But because they were Socialists and Communists who didn't like the American liberal democratic form of government and instead wanted a socialist or communist state to replace our liberal democratic federal form of government.

The House Un-American Activities Committee, was exactly that which was Un-American. The idea that people could be hauled in front of Congress at first in the House and then later in the early 1950s to the Senate Investigation Committee chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy simply because of their politics and political beliefs and not for anything that they even may have done, is simply Un-American. So what if Dalton Trumbo was not just on the Far-Left in America, but was also a Communist! He was never going to have any political power in America, nor did he ever want any. And the Communist Party was never going to have any political power in America simply because they're Communists and are illiberal. And oppose most of the liberal democratic values that most Americans love, like free speech and free elections, property rights, right to privacy, just to name a few.

Whether you're a Communist on the furthest Left in American political or a Christian-Theocrat or Nationalistic-Tribalist on the furthest right in American politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. And express your beliefs in public and try to make the case for what you believe in public. Which is as American as our melting post and individualism. Which is what the so-called Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s which is what this nationalistic anti-communist movement opposed and tried to eliminate from American life.
Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Daniel J. Mitchell: Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxism

Source: AIM- Karl Marx & Bernie Sanders-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog. That the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism, in his view. And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far. So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society “in their view” where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

Things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around. Transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects. Socialism democratic or not, is still a very collectivist ideology. Where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy. Where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we’re romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism,is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war. Where soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America and Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view, to use as one example.

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the Democratic world at least. The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil. Or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela. Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism is you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America? Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.
Source: Animate Educate 

Animate Educate: Understand Socialism vs Communism

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

The Atlantic: Opinion- Olga Khazan: The Social Benefits of Swearing

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

I'm going to give you an answer to why Americans swear so much at least now in public but also in private as well that is a lot less scientific than what Olga Khazan gives you. But before that I'm just to go on the record and say I'm not a religious fundamentalist or very religious at all and don't even practice any religion and I'm not a prude. Of course I swear like most Americans do I just have a real purpose to it and don't feel the need to sound cool and lot of times today swearing is generally used simply to sound cool and hip. People will swear really for no other reasons other than that.

I swear to express anger and amazement and no other reasons. "Holy shit! That man is fat!" Would be an example of someone showing amazement and being caught off guard. "Why don't you watch where the fuck you're going, are you trying to fuckin kill me?" Would be an example of someone expressing anger because they think someone is moving too fast generally in a vehicle and moving recklessly. But most Americans swear today and cable TV especially HBO and company is a perfect example of that because that is simply their normal vehicle of communication. That is how they talk to their friends, that is how their friends talk and it seems perfectly normal to them. That is how cool people talk today.

If you want to sound cool today you swear a lot and even do it for no apparent reason. "Where the fuck is he? He was supposed to be here 2 minutes ago. Fuckin lazy ass!" Now was that really called for or could that person just so a little patience instead and say, "relax, he'll be here." Or not even say that and just enjoy that time waiting a few minutes. Maybe get a latte and stare at their iPhone and pretend to look hip and important for a few minutes.

The more you swear and sound cool doing it, the cooler you'll be in American pop culture. And if you're in entertainment the more you swear the more popular you'll be and the more roles you'll have in movies or on HBO or the other networks where hard-core swearing is not just allowed but encouraged. The bigger the asshole you are the more attention you'll bring to yourself as the reality genre as proven the last fifteen years or so. You don't have to do a scientific study to prove this but simply be aware of your own surroundings and what is going on in culture today.

The fact that we now see more cussing in American politics today whether its lets say moderate cussing with the use of the word damn and hell, screw, and other words like that not just on cable news, but network news where you would think the people there would be more moderate and cognitive with their approach to how they express themselves, is just an example of how pop culture hasn't just infiltrated our political system, but that our political system is a reflection of our pop culture in America.

And saying what the heck, or darn it all, gee wiz, just sounds too 1950s Leave it to Beaver for most Americans today. Especially when you can say I don't give a damn or what the hell, that is a helluva a lot, and not pay any price for it. You don't need to poll people or do any scientific research on this and ask people why they swear regardless of their profession. You just have to be aware of what's going on in front of you and see it for yourself.
Source: The Atlantic

The Atlantic: Opinion- Olga Khazan: Does Swearing Make You Likable

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Bill Ayers: Notes On Violence

Source: Democracy Now-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

If you look at leftist social-democratic and counter-cultural movements from the 1960s and today, you have three different movements on the Left in America.

The Martin L. King civil rights and then later People’s Campaign from the 1960s. That I believe is now represented by the Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein Democratic Socialists of America.

The Hippie counter culture movement who were by enlarge peace loving people who were taking on the establishment culturally and looking for a new way of life in America and didn’t feel the need to live the way their parents and grandparents lived. But weren’t looking to destroy the American system and force every American to live their way of life.

And then you have the radicals who feel it was their duty to not just to try to take on the establishment, but to tear down by any means necessary. (To quote Minister Malcolm X) But the New-Left radicals of the 1960s and their kids and grandkids from today have a different meaning of by any means necessary. Malcolm X was talking about taking on racists even though violent means, but only in self-defense and not go looking for violent confrontations. The New-Left radicals meaning of by any means necessary is not only use violence to confront violence, but use violence to obtain their political objectives. Which means for them taking on right-wing racists and other bigots and taking on our capitalist system and the people who control it. Corporate America and others.

Dr. Martin King was not just a Socialist, but also a pacifist. The Weather Underground and other New-Left radical groups of the 1960s and 1970s were not just Socialists, but in many cases were Communists. One of the reasons why they opposed the Vietnam War was because America was not just involved in another country’s civil war, but was fighting communism in Vietnam.

And today The Weather Underground has become was is called ANTIFA which is short for anti-fascists. People who oppose what’s called white supremacy. Groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis who want to America to separate and create a new Protestant European nation inside of America. And of course there are terrorists in this Far-Right movement who would murder non-European-Protestant Americans. Including Jews who racially are the same, but differ ethnically and religiously from English and German Protestants in America and Europe.

And ANTIFA sees it as their duty to not just take on these Far-Right fascist groups and protest against them and use their free speech rights to take them on, but to destroy them. Again by any means necessary. They call themselves antifascists, but they’re not, because they would use fascism to not just cut off, but destroy movements they disagree with like the Far-Right and others.
Democracy Now: ANTIFA- A Look At The Antifascist Movement

Monday, September 18, 2017

Inside Edition: Bonnie Strauss- 1992 Feature on Jayne Mansfield

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

The man anchoring this show might look familiar to all you political and news junkies out there. Especially cable news junkies, because before Bill O'Reilly got his big gig The O'Reilly Factor at Fox News Channel in the mid 1990s, he was anchor of the syndicated tabloid/news magazine show Inside Edition. I remember watching him on that show in the mid 1990s after work. But enough about The O'Reilly Factor, or as I prefer to call him The O'Reilly Finger and give him my middle finger to show how I feel about him.

Jayne Mansfield died in a horrible car crash in 1967 and she wasn't drunk or even driving the car. The two men in front that were supposed to protect her were simply too tired to work and drive that night and should have never been on that trip. Especially with other people with them and in back of the car. So that is why Inside Edition did this story about Jayne in 1992. Because even though she did make a brief impact in Hollywood in the mid 1950s, it was sort of like that talented QB who has a couple big years early in his career and perhaps even wins the Super Bowl, but gets hurt or thinks too much of himself and stops doing the work and finds himself even playing for bad teams, or completely out of the NFL. The fall ends up being as dramatic as the rise to the top floor in Hollywood. That was Jayne Mansfield's short Hollywood adventure.

 I disagree with James Bacon that Jayne wasn't a good actress though and was only famous because of her, lets say measurements. She was a good actress, but more importantly a very good entertainer. Who was also a very good singer and comedian and had she realized that early on and just took with that instead of trying to move to doing drama and serious roles, we might be talking about one of the best comedic actresses and comedians at least of her generation. Which is how Carol Burnett and Mary Tyler Moore are remembered today. Not as great dramatic actresses, but great comedians as they should be. But Jayne got bored with comedy and tried to move away from what made her great in Hollywood.
Inside Edition: Bonnie Strauss- 1992 Feature on Jayne Mansfield

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Turner Classic Movies: TCM Remembers Robert Osborne- 1932-2017

Source: TCM- Robert Osborne-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

How I do I talk about Robert Osborne, how do I talk about a man I don't personally know who wasn't an actor or a famous celebrity really for anyone who wasn't an entertainer or an entertainment historian and writer who works with people like Osborne who was of course not just a film and Hollywood historian, but one of the best and most knowledgeable of his generation if not ever. Well, I guess I don't have to say I can talk about as fan of TCM and Classic Hollywood in general, but that wouldn't be giving me much credit. I'll talk about Robert Osborne as someone who loves Classic Hollywood as a blogger who blogs about Classic Hollywood from time to time. And a big reason is because of knowledgeable people and historians like Robert Osborne.

Robert Osborne is not the reason why I love and many other Americans perhaps especially on Google+ that has so many Classic Hollywood communities and communities about old movies, famous entertainers and TV. But he's one of the biggest reasons. Watching an old movie on TCM is not like watching an old movie on TNT or USA, to use as examples. Its so much better, because instead of one movie ending with the credits and that movie directly being followed by the next movie.

What you get is a backstory from someone like Robert Osborne or Ben Mankiewicz who gives you inside details about the movie you just saw. Where it was shot and why it was shot there. Background about the cast, writers and directors involved and what it took to get those people to work on that project. The chemistry that the cast had with each other, as well as the people they worked for on the project. As well as little information about the people on the project as far as how it affected their career before and after. And then you get a little taste about a documentary about about actors, actresses, and other entertainers short documentary films about Old Hollywood after the last movie had just been completed and before the next movie shows up.

Robert Osborne did not get me into Classic Hollywood, at least by himself. But like I said earlier because of him and TCM watching and old movie on TCM is not like watching an old movie everywhere else. Its more like reading a good book about a movie or  good documentary about a movie and then thinking I have to see that movie because its so interesting. Except you get that information for free. Robert Osborne gave his viewers a good book or documentary worth of information about the movie that you're about to watch in about three minutes. Because he was so knowledgeable about what you were about to see and doing it an interesting way.

Talking about the story without giving up the plot. Talking about the cast and again how they worked with each other and again how that film affected their careers and what they were doing before. I especially loved how Osborne talked about Hitchcock films and and saying how good Cary Grant was with Alfred Hitchcock because they had similar taste in movies, humor, and women. That is what you got with Robert Osborne. The story of the film before you saw it and yet still wanting and seeing that film, because of how interesting he made it sound. And he is one of the best if not the best and will be surely missed.
Turner Classic Movies: TCM Remembers Robert Osborne- 1932-2017

Friday, September 15, 2017

The Bully Pulpit: JR Benjamin- Why Identity Politics Fails

Source: The Bully Pulpit- Mark Lilla-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Why identity politics fails, at least in America? Well, because as much as the Far-Left (so-called Progressives today who are really Socialists) hates to admit this America is still a country of 320 million individuals. We’ve been this way a country of individuals even though our population has always grown since the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and 70s. When the 1940s and 1950s finally ended culturally and Americans led by the Baby Boom Generation decided that Americans should be able to be themselves. The freedom to be Americans and not forced either through government or culturally to conform with how Americans had lived up to that point in this country.

Identity politics goes against all of that and argues that there is only one way for Americans to live which is their way. Which is that there’s not rich and no poor and where economic equality is forced on everyone. And that people who strive to do better and be independent and make a good living on their own, are just being selfish and materialistic and serving the man. (As they would put it) And the so-called man to the New-Left (the Far-Left in America) is the white man (as they would put it. (Another way of saying the devil)

And non-Caucasian- Americans who are to the right of lets say Che Guevara, Saul Alinsky, Tom Hayden, and many others, who believe that the great thing about America is our diversity and the fact that everyone regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender, can make it in America and be successful and our individualism and the fact that Americans have the freedom to be Americans (which is ourselves) and not be forced to be part of some group either culturally or politically, simply because of their race, ethnicity, or complexion, and have the freedom to be themselves and even be successful. They’re viewed by the New-Left in America as sellouts and even Uncle Toms. Sellouts to their race and culture, because they don’t view individualism and capitalism as immoral and racist.

Identity politics doesn’t work in America because to put it simply its Un-American., Trying to force a country this large, diverse, and individualistic, that is even becoming racially and color blinded (thanks to Generation X) everywhere outside of the Far-Left and Far-Right in America, where we as a country simply want the freedom to be ourselves and live our own lives. And do not feel the need to act, talk, and believe in a certain way simply to please another political group, or radicals in our own ethnic or racial group.

We’re becoming an America where Americans are seen exactly as that. Again outside of the fringes on both sides and identity politics simply goes against that. And argues that Caucasian-Americans are simply overprivileged and by enlarge are bigots except for the people who went to either Ivy League or other great Northeastern or West Coast schools.

And because of that in their view that since Caucasians tend to be bigoted and overprivileged that non-Europeans-Americans are entitled to be treated better and deserve special protection under the law and even culturally, simply because they are specially protected groups as the New-Left would like them to be. And that simply goes against to what America and our great liberal democracy is and is supposed to be. Which is why identity politics fails in America.
Source: Politics and Prose

Politics and Prose: Andrew Sullivan Interviewing Mark Lilla- The Shipwrecked Mind

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner: 1983 TV Interview

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

This might sound harsh but I believe Lana Turner's life represents a Hollywood character and actress who struggled to get out of character when she was off stage. Actresses and actors when they make it in Hollywood and even become popular to the point where everyone interested in movies and TV knows who they are pick up an image. And believe they have to live up to that image to keep their popularity and stay hot in the business. Even if that image is not positive.

Like with Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield being known as blond bimbos and living up to that on and off camera. Even though in real life where actually pretty intelligent. Or James Dean being known as a teen rebel who is always taking on society and never quite settles down personally and is always fighting.

I believe in Lana Turner's case she picked up the image as a soap actress character on some show where she has all the money any person could have and could have any man at anytime and ends up with every man and even marrying every man. Has kids with every man she gets involved with. (At least practically) Sounds like at least two female characters on General Hospital and if you're familiar with the show and are a fan, you probably know who I'm talking about.

Lana Turner was perfect for soap operas because she was perfect for dramatic comedy. Both in her personal life as far as how she lived both intentionally and unintentionally, but she was also a great actress and a very funny woman as well. Which made her perfect for dramatic comedy which is what most good soap operas are like General Hospital, Dallas, Melrose Place, to use as examples, Days of Our Lives. To me at least Lana Turner's life was the story of a great soap opera. A lot of ups and downs, falls, and dramatic comebacks and she was one of the best soap actresses, as well as characters that we've ever had.
Alan Eichler: Good Morning America; David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner: 1983 TV Interview 

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Dan Carlin: We're All Liberals and Radicals

Source: Learn Liberty-
Source: Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Dan Carlin: We're All Liberals and Radicals

I agree with Dave Rubin and Dan Carlin on at least one thing here about political labels having lost their meanings and I would argue true meanings. I'm a Liberal because I believe in liberal democracy and its that simple. Individual rights, rule of law, equal rights, equal justice, equality of opportunity, limited government, free, fair and open elections, fiscal responsibility, strong but limited national defense, property rights.

But someone who believes in the opposites of many if not all of those things and not even believing in free speech and perhaps even a free press that is in private hands, along with having a lot socialist if not communist views on economic policy, will also call themselves a Liberal. People like talk show host Thom Hartmann who really is a Democratic Socialist if you bother to look at his politics instead of just automatically taking his word when he calls himself a Liberal, but he at least in the past has called himself a Liberal, but has called for state-control of the press.

The so-called liberal magazine Salon had an article in 2014 written by Fred Jerome calling for the nationalization of Fox News and other right wing media outlets because he believed there was too much of a right wing slant on the news.

Now who is the Liberal here? The man who advocates for liberal values and policies, or the people who call themselves Liberals, but advocate for Far-Left politics and positions and view people like Communists Fidel Castro Che Guevara, and the Neo-Communist regime in Venezuela as really good but misunderstood people. Perhaps they were treated badly as kids which is why they turned out like this, or its societies fault that they became authoritarian dictators.

When I see an apple and an orange, I'm going to call the apple an apple even if the orange calls them self an apple as well. Sometimes you need to believe your own ears and eyes over someone else's mouth. Facts matter and we should always take facts over someone else's propaganda. I partially agree with Dan Carlin on his second point that we're all Liberals. A lot of us are in America in the sense that Americans tend to believe in liberal democracy and values I just laid out and believe in both personal and economic freedom.

But if you're familiar with the over-caffeinated Millennial Generation and aging Baby Boomers who are still living in the 1960s culturally and mentally and still trying to take down the man (as they would put it) and destroy our inhumane, corrupt, corporate controlled private system, (as they would put it) they're not liberal all all, really. They can't take a joke and believe anything that offends them or people they claim to care about, should be censored and outlawed.

To go back to my previous points about Fidel and Che, the illiberal-left believes Castro and Guevara are good men. They believe in the Venezuelan Neo-Communist regime is a good honorable government trying to serve their people and eliminate corporate control. Even though they're arrested people simply for protesting against their regime. They believe the wrong country won the Cold War. And yet they get called Liberals by the lame stream media (to quote Sarah Palin) as Liberals, simply because the so-called mainstream media doesn't know what Liberals are and equates everyone on the Left as Liberals even if their politics are illiberal.

But again who are the Liberals here? The people who believe in liberal values, or the people who simply call themselves Liberals and are called Liberals by others? To go back to my point about facts matter, we should always believe our own ears and eyes overs someone's else's propaganda. Just because someone else labels them self something or is labeled something by someone else, doesn't make that true. Instead what you should do is your own research and look at their politics and see if that matches up with what they're self-proclaiming.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Classic Film and TV Cafe: A Fever in The Blood 1961

Source: Classic & TV Cafe- Angie Dickinson- Efrem Zimbalist-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

A Fever in The Blood is a picture of courtroom drama and political cinema, intrigue, and ambition. You have three powerful influential ambitious men who want to be the next governor of their state, which is never named in the movie. A sitting city judge, (played by Efrem Zimbalist) a district attorney, (played by Jack Kelly) and a sitting U.S. Senator. (Played by Don Ameche) And while all of this is going on you have high profile murder case involving a successful local businessman and his separated dead wife. With the husband being accused of the crime.

And you also have the adorable, gorgeous, and sexy Angie Dickinson, who has a smaller but very important character in the movie as the wife of Senator Alex Simon (played by Don Ameche) who is more interested in Judge Leland Hoffman (played by Efrem Zimbalist) and sees her husband as too power hungry and ambitious, as well as somewhat shady. I mean the cast and characters alone should get you interested in this movie. Unless you just hate courtroom dramas and fictional political films.

You have this local murder case in an unknown city with the District Attorney Dan Callahan (played by Jack Kelly) deciding to prosecute the case himself instead of assigning the case to one his top deputies. Because again Callahan wants to be governor of this mysterious state that will go nameless simply because it is never announced what state this movie takes place in. You have Judge Leland Hoffman who only gets this case assigned to him because he does his own wheeling and dealing ( I hate that expression) And Senator Alex Simon who is probably the favorite going into to win his unknown party's nomination for governor, but knows this murder case could be the boost that his top two opponents need to win the nomination. And actually ends up bribing Judge Hoffman in the Judge's office to let the case go.

There's a lot of backroom inside politics in this movie. That any great high profile drama has. The movie is also over two-hours but more than worth the time to watch it. Especially if you just like seeing Angie Dickinson in a great movie and she's had several. Not a movie for people simply looking for romantic comedies and softball humor. There's a good deal of humor in this movie, but a lot of that involves Don Ameche, as well as how Jack Kelly and Efrem Zimbalist in the courtroom. With the District Attorney accusing the Judge of ruling against him for political reasons. Great movie for political junkies such as myself but also for people who like courtroom dramas and even soap operas.
Source: Classic Film & TV Cafe- Angie Dickinson

Classic Film and TV Cafe: A Fever in The Blood 1961- Angie Dickinson & Efrem Zimbalist

Monday, September 11, 2017

The New Republic: Opinion- John Judis: The Socialism America Needs Now

Source: The New Republic-
Source: The New Republic: Opinion- John Judis: The Socialism That America Needs Now

To give you an idea of what I believe socialism is and what it isn't, I agree with John Judis at TNR that socialism has a couple layers, three if you include Chinese communism. But before that I want to talk about a discussion I had on Quora last week. (Of all places) Before that discussion I had absolutely no use for Quora and would even tweet or post on Google+, "why is someone following me on Quora, I'm never on Quora!" Which is true! When I would pick up a new follower. Except for last week when I responded to a question posed on Quora about socialism by someone who will go nameless simply because I don't remember their name. And this person asked are Liberals, Socialists?

To put it simply Liberals are not since liberal democracy is very different from social democracy or communism. But I went further and said that there three separate political ideologies in this discussion. Liberalism that I believe in as a Liberal. Marxism which is essentially communism today. Which is the Un-democratic form of socialism. And social democracy/democratic socialism. The third layer of socialism would be Chinese communism.

China certainly still qualifies as a Marxist-Communist State as it relates to social policy with no free press and legal political opposition in the country. No guaranteed ability for people to speak out and express themselves, certainly about the central government. No right to privacy and people could lose their homes easily to the state if the state simply decides to take that property from them. No guaranteed right of religion and for people to make that choice to practice or not practice religion themselves.

But economically the only reason why China has boomed in the last lost forty years now is because of the privatization of their economy. You have big cities in China now like Shanghai that look like big cities in Japan, Europe, or even America. Highly developed with all sorts of private companies and business's, with large middle classes and even rich people. That is because they've now become a capitalist economy with a large welfare state and still have some state-run enterprises from their previous communist regimes.

What I was trying to get through to the person on Quora I was talking to with his point being that so-called Liberals aren't socialists because they haven't called for economic nationalization with the state owning and running the entire economy, is that there are layers of socialism. And none of them are part of liberalism.

Yes, there are still Marxist-Communists who are Un-Democratic Socialists who do believe there should be no private sector and private ownership in the economy. But other than North Korea and someone might find some small country in Africa where this philosophy is still practiced, Marxism is a dying governing philosophy in the world. Even Cuba has opened their economy to so some private ownership and capitalism. Other than maybe Eugene Debbs (Socialist Party presidential candidate in the early 20th Century) there are really no Democratic Socialists who believe in complete state-control of the economy in society.

The mainstream wing of socialism is social democracy/democratic socialism. Which includes private ownership of the economy and even allowing for people to own their own property. But where private industry is heavily regulated for the good of society. As Democratic Socialists would put it) Highly taxed to prevent income inequality and to provide a large welfare state to provide the public services to people that Socialists believe shouldn't be in private for-profit hands. Services like health care, health insurance, education, pensions, child care, perhaps a few other social services.

But even this wing of socialism would considered Far-Left in America, (except for Millennial's and aging Baby Boomers like Bernie Sanders) because of the high taxation, regulation, over centralization of government especially in a federal republic like America where we tend not to trust big centralized government and like to see more power with the states, localities, and individuals themselves. But still a very mainstream not just political philosophy, but governing philosophy in Europe. Especially in Scandinavia.

I disagree with John Judis and his TNR column about another thing. I don't believe America needs any form of socialism. You would almost have to rewrite or at least seriously reform our U.S. Constitution and take away our federal form of government for any socialist model of government to be put in place in America. Or have some political revolution where Communists come into power through violent  military means and eventually take over the U.S. Government and throw out our form of government. And start nationalizing state and local government's and replacing them with Marxist-Socialists or Communists. (I guess ANTIFA is working on that right now)

So in this sense at least socialism simply wouldn't be a practical governing philosophy in America. Our form of government is simply too decentralized and would require again reforming the U.S. Constitution through all sorts of amendments, or rewriting it which would require amendments. But for socialism in the democratic form to become an alternative philosophy to Center-Right conservatism and Center-Left liberalism, Socialists in America and that starts with their leaders Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, need to start being real with their followers.

Stop promising free candy, cookies, sodas, to their followers that they want Uncle Sam to take care of. Explain to them why democratic socialism is the best governing philosophy, but also be realistic and honest with that. Stop promising free stuff! Like health care, health insurance, college, pensions, child care, etc. And tell them that government services have to paid for and be paid for by the people who consume them who are taxpayers. And tell them that if government is going to provide these services to people that taxes are going to have to be raised on everyone who consumes these government services.

And then we'll really see how popular socialism is in America and if Americans really want to pay for this government-run Socialist Utopia that Socialists keep promising. Especially as more Baby Boomers die off and Millennial's get older and hopefully finally grow up.
Source: TYT- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialists, Socialist Republic of Vermont

The Young Turks: John Iadarola, Ana Kasparian &Josh Mankiewicz- Bernie Sanders Speech on Democratic Socialism