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 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

Saturday, September 9, 2017

NFL Films: Randy White- Top 10 Dallas Cowboys of All Time

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

When you're talking about the best defensive tackles in NFL history, I believe there really only four you can consider for the best ever. And then argue about which one of those four is the best ever. Not necessarily in this order, but Joe Greene from the Pittsburgh Steelers. Bob Lilly from the Dallas Cowboys. Merlin Olsen from the Los Angeles Rams. And last and perhaps not least Randy White also from the Cowboys, the best defensive tackle of the 1980s at least and I would argue probably the best defensive tackle if not defensive lineman of the 1980s and the second half of the 1970s if not that entire decade.

That is how great of a football player Randy White was and I would have a pretty good idea growing up as a Redskins fan in the 1980s and seeing him play at least twice a year for about 7-8 years. The reason why the Doomsday Defense of the Cowboys was so good is because they didn't have to blitz to pass rush or stop the run. You had Ed Jones and Harvey Martin on the ends and Randy in the middle. Larry Cole was a very good DT as well. And you always had to double team Randy, (except for Russ Grimm with the Redskins) which freed up either Ed Jones or Harvey Martin on the outside, or Larry Cole as the other DT.

Randy White was 6'4 but he only weighed 260-265 pounds and he might have even beefed up to that once Tom Landry finally figured out that Manster wasn't a linebacker but a defensive lineman. And 260-265 for a defensive tackle in the 1980s and would've been small even back then. Especially going up against the Redskins and the big Chicago Bears offensive lines in the 1980s. But he was so strong and quick. He could get into the opponents backfield before the offensive lineman even moved. Or just knock the lineman out-of-the-way.

He reminds me of Dick Butkus (Chicago Bears LB) as far as how quick, strong, athletic, and aggressive he was. He didn't tackle his opponents, but he pounded them into the ground like pro wrestlers did. But his slams on opponents were real. Randy White was the best Cowboy defensive player of the 1970s and it would be between Randy and Bob Lilly as far as greatest Cowboy defender of all time. The nickname Manster that Randy picked up (half man, half monster) he was exactly that. Because football was like war for him and the goal seemed to be for him to destroy his opponents and not just win the game. Because of his strength, athletic ability, and quickness he's still one of the best defensive players ever.
NFL Films: Randy White- Top 10 Dallas Cowboys of All Time

Friday, September 8, 2017

Vanity Fair: Opinion- Rich Cohen: Why Generation X Might Be Our Last, Best Hope

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

To talk about Generation X (my generation born in 1975) it depends on how you define it. To put it simply we're the generation that is now in our forties and fifties. The middle adult generation between the Boomers and the Millennial's. Officially Baby Boomers are Americans born between 1946-64. So after World War II and during the civi rights movement of the mid 1960s. And I'm sure the U.S. Census Bureau does a lot of things very well, but defining generations is not really one of them. And as most Americans (who aren't a Socialist) know government can get things wrong in this country.

Another way to look at Generation X are the people who went to school and grew up in post-segregated America. If you want to know why so many Americans are both color and race blind is because so many of us (Gen-Xers) went to public schools that were racially and ethnically diverse. So we went to school before we knew what race and ethnicity was. And got to see people as they were as people and not just how they looked. Why they had a certain complexion, why there hair looked a certain way, why they had certain names. Things that come with one's ethnicity and race.

Which is why affirmative action has been losing support with my generation and in America broadly, because a lot of us now simply don't judge Americans by their race or ethnicity and therefor don't believe people should be rewarded or punished simply because of their race or ethnicity. I believe the more accurate way to define Generation X is Americans born between 1960 or 61 and 1979. And I believe a lot of Americans born in the early 1960s would agree with this since they have plenty in common as far as their own personal experiences with Americans born in the mid and late 1960s and even early 1970s, is Americans born between 1960 or 61, and 1979. Than they do with Boomer Americans born in the 1940s and 1950s and even in some cases late 1950s.

So everyone born in 1979 would be the last of the Gen-Xers. Which is what I'll be talking about in this piece is Americans born in the 1960s and 1970s that are right between the two largest generations in at least modern American history. The Baby Boomers born in the 1940s and 1950s that are the parents of most Gen-Xers. And the Millennial's born in the 1980s and 1990s who are the children of some Gen-Xers and a lot of Boomers.  Even if you stretch out Generation X to let's say 1961 or even 1960 to 1979, we're still a small generation. Like North Korea surrounded by China and Russia.

Because a lot of Boomers especially men were vacationing in Vietnam in the 1960s (ha, ha) and the the economy was so depressing in the 1970s that a lot of Boomers weren't having kids. They were too busy crying about the Vietnam War and the fact they couldn't find a job, or at least a good job. But that is really for a different topic as far as why my generation is so damn small and we have to look up to the Boomers and Millennial's as far as numbers.

The main reason why I still have some hope for America even with the oversensitive Millennial's who can't take a joke and want to outlaw everything they disagree with and view celebrity culture and new technology as need to know information and current affairs and public policy back page and unimportant, because it requires thinking and intelligence to understand, and history as so old school and yesterday and therefor not worth learning about and being interested in, is because what I laid out early in this article. Gen-Xers are the first post-segregation generation.

If you're a Boomer or older chances are you went to a segregated school, especially if you grew up in the South or even rural small towns in the North. And therefor didn't get to or have to socialize and learn with kids of different racial or ethnic backgrounds as yourself, until you probably graduated high school. And then maybe even in college you didn't go to school with people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Unless you were an African-American who is in college on let's say a scholarship. That is not a problem that most Gen-Xers had and the same thing for the Millennial's.

So Gen-Xers have got to experience America at it's best and what we're supposed to be as this great vast liberal democracy where everyone can succeed if they're simply just given the opportunity to and then take advantage of those opportunities. Regardless of their ethnicity, race, or gender. And we've gotten to learn about America at it's worst and to some extent experience racial and ethnic bigotry ourselves, especially racial and ethnic minorities, but in most cases not to the same extent as our parents and grandparents.

We know what works about America which is our ability to be individuals and at the same time celebrate what we all share and love about America. Which is the ability for us to be ourselves and not have to fall in line and be some big collection of Americans that all think, talk and act alike. And we know what doesn't which is denying Americans opportunity and access simply because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, or their gender. And trying to lump groups of Americans into one group and think they must all think, talk, and act a certain way, because of the group that they're a member of.

Another reason why I have hope for America is Generation X in most cases are the sons and daughters of the Baby Boomers. We've learned from them about individuality and learned from the so-called Me Generation and that Americans are better off being themselves and taking care of themselves. That we're only as useful and can help others when we're doing well ourselves. Which is why I believe Gen-X is an educated generation and successful generation.

We've gotten ourselves the tools to do well in America and then have passed our wealth and knowledge down to others and have become a large volunteering generation. And enjoy volunteering for others and helping people out, because we've made it in America in most cases. And aren't drowning in student debt (unlike another generation) and are able to take care of ourselves for the most part. (Unlike another generation)

The last reason why I believe America still has hope and will still be a great country 20 years from now when I'm in my early 60s (knock on wood) is because Generation X is the middle generation. We're in our 40s and 50s and just had our first President in Barack Obama. (Born in 1961) We're going to be around and in charge for a long time. And because of that will have the ability to lead and teach others what we've know and have experienced.

And hopefully the Millennial's will grow up and learn that just because they don't like a joke or criticism, doesn't necessarily make that joke and criticism bigoted.

Hopefully Millennial's will learn that just because they don't approve of this activity or another like what people eat and drink like soft drinks and junk food, or meat because they view eating meat as animal cruelty, doesn't mean those things are so bad that government should prohibit them.

Hopefully Millennial's will learn that just because celebrity culture and new technology or are so like totally awesome or whatever, that maybe those things really aren't as important as how government is spending our tax dollars, or are we going to be at war, or are our civil rights, civil liberties, and constitutional rights, are now in jeopardy, because of some big government action or actions.

These are the reasons why I still have hope for America and my Generation X is a big part of that.
Source: National Geographic- NBC Nightly News Anchor Jane Pauley


National Geographic: NBC Nightly News With Jane Pauley

Thursday, September 7, 2017

The American Spectator: Opinion- Jeffrey Lord: "ANTIFA- The New Ku Klux Klan"

Source: The American Spectator-
Source: The American Spectator: Opinion- Jeffrey Lord: ANTIFA- The New Ku Klux Klan

Here's an example of a right-winger in this case Jeffrey Lord (former political analyst at CNN) who doesn't want his side to and have to take any responsibility for anything negative that most Americans would view as not just negative but horrible. Which in this case would be racist bigotry and racist terrorism like the Ku Klux Klan and the broader Alt-Right. So what they'll do is to make it seem that these radicals are actually Democrats or even worst in their view, Liberals. Even if you you just took Liberalism 101 you would know that racial intolerance is not a liberal value, but racial intolerance is actually illiberal. Racial tolerance and racial blindness as far as how we judge people are liberal values. And anyone who is a true Conservative, Libertarian, Democratic Socialist, also believes in racial tolerance and racial blindness.

The Ku Klux Klan that was made up of Dixiecrat Democrats. The KKK had members of Congress including senators as well. There were also Dixiecrats in Congress who weren't affiliated with the KK K officially, but were ideologically in sync with the KKK, short of physically using violence against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. And believed that African-Americans and other non-European-Americans weren't entitled to the same rights in America as Caucasians. But didn't believe in using terrorism to stamp out the civil rights movement.

Just because you're registered as a Democrat doesn't make you liberal, progressive, or left. Just because you're registered as a Republican, doesn't mean you're conservative, libertarian, or right. It just means you're registered with that party. Before the late 1970s or so you had right-wing Democrats (Dixiecrats) who represented perhaps as much 1/3 or more of the Democratic Party. Who I would argue at least weren't Center-Right Conservatives, but Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists, who represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today.

Senator Strom Thurmond who was a U.S. Senator from 1955-2003, one of the longest serving members of Congress in American history, was a Democrat up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s and switched to the Democratic Party in 1964. His politics and ideology didn't switch, just his political party. He was a Dixiecrat until he left the Democratic Party and then I guess you could call him a Dixie Republican when he became part of the GOP. But he was always a Neo-Confederate Nationalist who moderated his views on racial issues, but never supported the civil rights laws and was always a right-winger and even on the Far-Right in American politics.

Senator Jim Eastland, was also a Dixiecrat in his time in Congress in the 1950s, 60s, ands 70s and there were many many Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate Nationalist right-wing Democrats in the Democratic Party during this period, who now represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. As they would say, 'they didn't leave the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left them."

As far as ANTIFA. They are obviously a radical leftist socialist and perhaps even communist movement in America with no right-wing or Republican leanings. But they don't seem to be associated with the Democratic Party either. Perhaps in some cases with the Far-Left of the party ideologically. But they are even to the left of Bernie Sanders who represents the modern Martin Luther King People's Party movement which is a peace loving movement that believes in economic equality through democratic socialist means.

ANTIFA- think by any means necessary to accomplish their objectives which includes violence and even terrorism targeted at Far-Right groups and individuals. Which they say they want to eliminate fascism. But where I could agree with Jeff Lord here is that they want to eliminate right-wing fascism like the KKK and broader Alt-Right. But would keep their form of fascism in place. Which is anyone on the right-wing or anyone who disagrees with them in general, doesn't have a right to speak in their view. Which is a classic form of fascism which is to eliminate opposing views and speech. Even if that means using violence and terrorism to accomplish those objectives. They're also anti-capitalist and would like to eliminate capitalism and perhaps even property rights. But right now they seem to be interested and eliminating the Far-Right in America. Again by any means necessary.
Source: The 100 Club

The 100 Club: ANTIFA- The New KKK

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Frank Furedi- College Students Think Freedom is Not a Big Deal

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

As someone who didn't even graduate college I'm probably not the right spokesperson for this, (to say the least) but I've always believed that college is supposed to be a place to learn and and even learn news ideas. New ideas and things that people didn't hear much if anything about in high school or anywhere else and not to automatically take those new ideas and philosophies on face value and automatically, but to learn about them and then decide for themselves on the best available evidence possible on the worth of those ideas and philosophies.

That it's not the job of college to tell people how to think and what to think, but how to learn and then the students can figure out for themselves the worth of what they're learned and what it means on the best available evidence possible. Call me naive if you want, but that is what I believe. I think what we're seeing at college now is sort of the opposite of that. That you have professors who don't teach their students about ideas and philosophies as much as they try to teach their students what to think. That this is what you should believe because this is what is right and wrong. Instead of giving their students the freedom to learn and experience and figure out what works for them and in society for themselves. Again on the best available evidence possible.

Today what we're seeing at college with young students like millennial's and soon to be the so-called Z Generation, is that the opposites are being taught and learned as far as what makes America great and what makes our diverse vast liberal democracy work so well.

According to too many millennial's freedom and free speech are bad. They seem to believe that free speech is nothing more than the right to offend someone and because of that we should eliminate free speech because someone might be offended by what is heard and believed.

That personal freedom is nothing more than the right to make mistakes and screw up that the rest of society will have to pay for.

That capitalism and property rights are racist and selfish. Because African-Americans and Latino-Americans, haven't done as well as European and Asian-Americans economically in America and because of that capitalism is racist and unfair. That allowing people to keep what they own and have earned simply by purchasing it with money they've earned, that is somehow selfish for people to be able to keep property for themselves. And as a result some people will have to go without because you have these selfish people keeping their own property and not sharing it with people who have little.

That Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were great men because they took on the man (so to speak) and that Tomas Jefferson is evil because he owned African slaves. Even in a time when almost all European men in America with means owned slaves. Forgetting the facts that Fidel and Che were both Marxist-Communists who killed people simply because they disagreed with them politically and would lock people up simply for dissenting.

As I said the opposites are being taught to young people in and outside of college in America. And one can just say, "hey, look at those stupid young people. Don't worry, they'l grow up and be forced to go to work in order to support themselves and learn how the real world works, even if they end up bashing the American system that they've benefited from their whole lives." One could say that and perhaps these millennial's as they reach their forties and fifties at worst will end up being like these fake Hollywood Socialists like the Jane Fonda's and Mike Moore's of the world, who end up bashing capitalism and freedom in general, even as they collect their millions and continue to take advantage of a system as they should, that they've benefited so much from.

The thing with socialism is that it's much easier to practice as long as you don't have to live with it. It's a much better system hypothetically than in practice and having to live with it. Because at the end of the day whether you're an Ayn Rand Objectivist-Libertarian, or a Marxist-Socialist, we're all Americans. And we all tend to want to be successful in life and live comfortably. I believe that is the best hope that we can have for the Millennial Generation at this point.
Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Frank Fruedi- College Students Think Freedom is Not a Big Deal

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

TruthDig: Opinion- Chris Hedges: How ANTIFA Mirrors The Alt-Right

Source: TruthDig-
Source: TruthDig: Opinion- Chris Hedges: How Antifa Mirrors The Alt-Right

Dr. Martin L. King has a lot of beautiful and famous quotes as most of us know. And he has this one quote on violence that goes like this. "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets greater toughness. Returning violence for for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that."

Dr. King's point on this is that if you fight violence with violence even if you're doing for a good cause like trying to stamp out bigots from a community, you're only going to get more violence in return. That violence will come back at you. Especially if you're fighting back with violence against violent terrorists like Neo-Nazis on the so-called Alt-Right.

I'm not a pacifist myself unlike Dr. King and believe there are times when violence is the only credible and workable option. Like when you're under physical attack yourself. Sure, you could wait until someone comes to rescue you and argue that if you physically fight back yourself you'l just receive more physical punishment from your attacker. Or you could take a stand physically and defend yourself to prevent future damage against yourself and end the attack on yourself altogether. I believe most Americans would choose the latter on that question.

But what the so-called anti-fascist radically socialist and even anarchist group known as ANTIFA is doing is not physically defending themselves. What they're doing is taking on these Neo-Nazis with violence even when they're not under physical assault themselves. In the name of drowning out hate speech and racism. Even if that means cutting off the free speech of other Americans, which is what the Alt-Right are. Un-American as far as their racist and fascist politics, but just as American as people who treat people as people and don't judge others by their race, ethnicity or gender. Because they share the same American citizenship as the non-haters.

When you're talking about ANTIFA, you're not talking about peace loving hippie Socialists from the 1960s. The political movement that Senator Bernie Sanders the only self-described Socialist in Congress represents today. ANTIFA represents the Che Guevara wing of the socialist movement in the country and around the world. The Marxist-Socialist wing that believes to achieve the Socialist Utopia that Socialists want you have to use revolutionary means and that includes violence. And destroying the people who are in power and keeping the liberal capitalist and liberal order in place.

The Communist Republic of Cuba wasn't established through democratic means. But through civil war. The authoritarian Batista Regime in Cuba, against the Fidel Castro-Guevara revolutionaries that wanted to throw the Batista's out-of-power and then establish a Marxist State in Cuba which is what they eventually did. Whatever you think of Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, they represented the Bernie Sanders peace loving hippie Socialists. And weren't Marxist revolutionaries. Unlike ANTIFA today that feels the need to fight capitalism and Neo-Nazism with violence.
Jamarl Thomas: How ANTIFA Mirrors The Alt-Right

Monday, September 4, 2017

Jerry Skinner: What Happened To Jayne Mansfield?

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

What happened to Jayne Mansfield? Well as far as her death, she died in a car accident in June, 1967. She was a passenger and not driving and was headed to New Orleans from Biloxi, Mississippi just after midnight because Jayne had an interview that next day on a local New Orleans news show. They probably should have waited until the next morning to leave because as we know now the driver of the car was working and driving literally on no sleep.

And to make things worst they were trying to make an 87 mile trip in about an hour or so and were in a real rush. So you got a tired driver driving past midnight and in a hurry to get from Biloxi to Mississippi and you also had a lot of traffic on the road as well and two men who died in the accident in front of Jayne's car who were real impatient.

But I believe the better question as far as what really happened to Jayne Mansfield is not so much about how she died in the end. But why was she performing in nightclubs in Biloxi, Mississippi in 1967 when she was still only 34 years old. Instead of New York or Los Angeles making movies, or doing TV shows, performing comedy, perhaps putting her own music album together. Because she had real talent to do all these things as a versatile entertainer, but wasn't doing them by 1967.

One thing that I agree with the narrator in this video is that Jayne Mansfield wasn't a dumb blonde. The woman had a college degree and came from a successful family in Pennsylvania and later Texas. The daughter of a layer and teacher. She could act, she had a comedic wit, and a singer's voice. But she played the dumb sexy blonde as a career move in order to make money and bring publicity to herself.

But to go back to the fact that she was actually a good actress who could act. She played the dumb sexy blonde so well that people took her seriously as the dumb sexy blonde and didn't see her as anything else. Both her fans and studios, movie and TV executives. She voluntarily left Hollywood in the 1960s because she was tired of playing the dumb sexy blonde and wanted serious roles as an actress. She could have stayed in Hollywood and continued to play the dumb sexy blonde and had very successful career as a comedic actress and comedian in general.

But Jayne was no longer interested in those roles. I believe she would have made a great soap actress in the 1970s and 80s even on prime time had she lived a normal life in years, because of a great comedic timing and wit and she had real dramatic affect as well. But of course we'll never know that. I believe Saturday Night Live in the 1970s and 80s would have been a great place for her too, but we'll never know that either. By the early and mid 1960s Jayne's Hollywood career was basically over.

Not because Jayne was kicked out, but because she was tired of the roles that she was getting. As the comedy relief in movies and TV appearances and wanted to go further as an actress. And was left to doing b-movies and and even some pornographic film and even films of her simply traveling around the country and going to Europe simply to stay busy as an actress. Marilyn Monroe is famous for saying that it takes a smart woman to play the dumb blonde. Jayne played the dumb blonde so well that she had too many people fooled. Which is why she's always been known as the dumb sexy blonde and not much else even though she had so much else going for her as an entertainer and person.
Jerry Skinner: What Happened To Jayne Mansfield?

Saturday, September 2, 2017

NFL Films: Bob Ryan- How The Dallas Cowboys Became Americas Team

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

At risk of stating the obvious, in a country over 200 million people back in the 1970s and in a major sports league like the NFL with 26 franchises by the time the NFL expanded to Tampa and Seattle in 1976, it's hard to accurately say there was one Americas team in the NFL. America is not Jamaica or Iceland, we're a huge country with a huge population.

Granted, the Dallas Cowboys were probably the most popular team in the NFL in the 1970s and a lot of that I believe had to do with their Hollywood pop culture appeal. Where a lot of their players looked like professional celebrities and entertainers perhaps as much or more as they looked like professional football players. But as one guy in this video said a lot of the promotion that was about the Cowboys in putting together the Americas Team film that was about the Cowboys was based on lies.

The Pittsburgh Steelers were the team of the 1970s in the NFL and I would argue the team of pro sports in that decade. They won 4-6 Super Bowls from 1974-79. Had never been done before and hasn't been done since and perhaps never will be done again with all the parity in the league today. And if you just look at personal and the fact that the Oakland Raiders are also in the AFC along with the Steelers and had to play the Steelers three times in the AFC Championship just to get to the Super Bowl and lost 2-3 of those games, you could certainly argue that the Oakland Raiders were just as good as the Cowboys in the 1970s.

Sure, the Cowboys won 2 Super Bowls and the Raiders only 1. And the Cowboys won five conference championships and the Raiders only 1. But who was the other great NFC franchise in the 1970s? The Minnesota Vikings who lost three Super Bowls? The Los Angeles Rams who only won one conference championship? The Rams, Vikings, and Redskins, were pretty good in the 1970s. But the Cowboys were the only great NFC team in the decade. Which is one reason why they won 5 NFC Championship's. The Steelers had the Raiders and Dolphins that they had to worry about every year and probably beat in the AFC Playoffs just to get to the Super Bowl.

The Dallas Cowboys on paper were probably just as good or about as good as the Pittsburgh Steelers and you could argue they had a better team in 1978 than the Steelers and should have won Super Bowl 13, which I believe is still the best Super Bowl ever. But they didn't and to be the best, you have to beat the best and be your best when it counts the most. Like not dropping TD passes when you're wide-open in the end zone. Being the most popular team and being Americas Team are two different things. Which is why Dallas Cowboys came up short in the 1970s.
NFL Films: Bob Ryan- How The Dallas Cowboys Became Americas Team

Friday, September 1, 2017

The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Source: The Independent Institute-
Source: The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Libertarian Economist Walter Williams once said something that I actually agree with. He was talking about property rights and extended them to one's self and one's body. That the individual has complete control of their own body and therefor gets to decide what's done with their body. What they can eat, what they can drink, what they can smoke, even who they can have consensually have sex with. Even if the sex is homosexual sex, taking money to have sex with someone else in a consensual way.

How we can spend our own money short of using our money to have someone beat up or murdered, or spending our money in order to have something stolen from someone else. And that includes spending our money to gamble even at casinos or private card games, to use as examples. That private property rights just doesn't cover one's home, or car, or personal possessions, like a business that they may own. But ourselves as individuals and our own bodies. Short of hurting an innocent person with our body or other property like money.

This is really the main difference between a liberal democracy like America with guaranteed constitutional and individual rights that include property rights as I just mentioned and living in a Marxist-Communist state like North Korea (to use as an example) where individualism is essentially outlawed. Where the state (meaning the national government) owns everything in society. Including where the people live and work, even shop.

Even social democracies like Britain that are very socialist as far as how their national government and economy works, have a high degree of property rights in their country. They just aren't guaranteed especially under a constitutional system which is what we have in America. Property rights are the rights for individuals to control and operate what they actually own including their own bodies.

Our property rights are guaranteed in America under both the Fourth and Fifth amendment's in the Constitution. That can't be interfered with by the state (meaning government) without probable cause. That the state views what someone is doing as a threat to bodily harm or financial harm to an innocent person. Not talking about an anarcho state (meaning anarchy) where everyone can essentially do whatever they want including hurting innocent people. And then it's left up to the victim to decide what should happen to their predator and left up to the victim to inflict whatever consequences on their predator.

But talking about a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where property rights including to one's self are guaranteed short of hurting innocent people with our property. As much as so-called Progressives in America today (Socialists in reality) complain about property rights, private property, and individualism in America and that too much in their view is left up to the individual to decide how they should live, they take advantage of our property rights and free speech everyday. And you can say the same thing about the Christian-Right in America but their complaints about our property rights tend to be more about our personal freedom and our freedom to make our own lifestyle choices, instead of our economic freedom.

But that's just one thing that is great about America that one doesn't even have to believe in property rights and either personal or economic freedoms, or either of them in order to take advantage of them and live with them. People who don't believe in free speech (just one property right) can use their First Amendment rights to make the case why censorship is necessary to outlaw speech that they disagree with and that offends them.

Because the censors whether they are political correctness warriors or Christian-Conservatives who are offended by certain forms of entertainment, have the same free speech rights as people who believe in free speech. Who are free speech nuts like myself, to borrow a phrase from Kirsten Powers and Jeffrey Lord. (Two political analysts at CNN) Just as long as we're not using our free speech rights to incite violence or irresponsibly libel innocent people. That property rights extend to everyone including people who don't believe in them.