John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ken White: 'Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers'

Source: Reason Magazine- Attacks against free speech 
Source: Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ken White: 'Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers'

I guess where I would disagree is with the title of the Reason piece where they say, "free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives." Implying that free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives, that it is from Liberals. I argue that free speech is not in danger from either of the center's of American politics the Center-Right and Center Left, Conservatives and Liberals, but that's in danger from the fringes of American politics.

Nationalist-Tribalist- Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right, who are offended by American culture and would like to see big government come in and restrict what we can see on TV and in pop culture generally. And anyone who opposes Donald Trump and his supporters are traitors ( from their perspective ) and therefor not serving of the same free speech rights as people who support Donald Trump and come from the Christian-Right Nationalist wing in and outside of the Republican Party.

And Socialists in some cases democratic but when you look at groups like ANTIFA and other self-described Communists in America, people who believe that right-wingers don't have free speech rights in America because what they say is offensive and they simply don't like what the Right ( especially Far-Right ) has to say and therefor should be shut down and silenced whenever they speak. Whenever one of these right-wingers especially Far-Rightist's like Ann Coulter tries to give a speech, you'll see Far-Left groups show up and protest her or someone else on the Far-Right and try to shut her down and shut her up. When one of these people writes a book, they'll protest bookstores and try to boycott them so the author can't sell their book.

As an actual Liberal, not a Libertarian, or Civil Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but as an actual real-life Liberal who doesn't want big government trying to manage our personal and economic affairs for us including what we say to each other and doesn't want a national babysitter or nanny state, but a real Liberal in the real sense as someone who believe in liberal values like liberal democracy and the individual rights that Liberals actually support, I believe in free speech period. Whether it comes to pornography and other forms of adult entertainment that the Christian-Right claims to hate and use to view ( pre-Donald Trump ) as a national threat to our security and morality. Or critical or even offensive speech towards minority groups or anyone else in America that the Far-Right hates.

If you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech. Which is sort of like saying if someone believes in God, they believe in God, but my point is that if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech for everyone and not just people that you tend to agree with. Like that Michael Douglas line from The American President, that America is hard and you have to want it bad because it's going to come after you. Because it's a society where you have the right to say and believe whatever you want and those rights will be defended to the hilt. But that people who tend disagree with you have the exact same constitutional First Amendment free speech rights as you do. And free speech is better and America is better when we fight for the free speech rights as others the same way that we fight for our own and the people who we tend to agree with.

Monday, September 17, 2018

The Economist: The Literature of Liberalism- Liberal Democracy: The Core of Liberalism

Source: The Economist- Liberal thinkers 
Source: The Economist: The Literature of Liberalism

There's been this ongoing debate about what liberalism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal. If you were ask me as a Liberal what it means to be a Liberal, I would tell you it means someone who believes in the defense of liberty, meaning the protection of individual rights. If you were to ask me what Liberals believe the role of government is I would tell you is to defend and conserve our individual rights. And where they can expand freedom for people who don't currently have it.

I believe this definition works for anyone who considers them self to be a Liberal and perhaps Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but that doesn't work for everyone especially people who are further left and even Far-Left, but don't see themselves as Far-Left and it's just that everyone else is out of the mainstream, but somehow they're the sane, rational, mainstream people. And instead of calling themselves Socialists or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, they prefer to be called Liberals, in some cases Progressives, and the more candid members of the Far-Left especially in America might call themselves Modern Liberals.

Even though a lot of what the Far-Left advocates for is actually illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) and not liberal at all. Like censorship when it comes to offensive and critical speech, or hate speech. Protesting against Halloween and Thanksgiving, team nicknames, because they believe those holidays are somehow racist. Using big government to make the dietary decisions for everyone and tell everybody what they can eat and drink and what we can say to each other and in some cases even what we can do with our own bodies. Otherwise known as the nanny state which is just another example of the illiberal-left, not liberal-left.

Along with all of their big centralize government views when it comes to the economy where they believe wealth should essentially outlawed and taxes so high so government can decide how much money and freedom everyone should have, because they don't want anyone to be rich or poor. As well as the belief that big centralize national government is always the best government and decentralizing governmental power is somehow dangerous, along with personal freedom and free speech being dangerous according to the illiberal-left, which is just another way of saying Far-Left or New-Left.

Even though one of the core liberal values of liberalism is that big centralize power shouldn't be trusted and always held accountable and than absolute power whether it's public power or private power corrupts absolutely. But it's not liberal values that the Far-Left believes in, but instead collectivist values and in some cases social democratic values that they believe in.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

According to Merriam Webster

Illiberalism is, "opposition to or lack of liberalism."

So someone who is against free speech and instead is in favor of censorship when it comes to language they don't like whether it's in movies or music, t-shirts, critical speech, offensive speech, hate speech even, someone who believes that speech that's offensive should be censored and that political correctness should be the policy when it comes to speech, is proposing an illiberal view.

Someone who doesn't believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, otherwise known as personal freedom even if they're pro-choice when it comes to women's reproductive rights and sexuality and romance freedom and that romantic couples shouldn't be required to get married before they start living together and having kids, even if you're pro-choice on the issues meaning things that you already agree with, but propose personal freedom in general, because you believe it's dangerous and that individuals can't be trusted to make their own decisions, you're not very pro-choice.

Someone who is pro-choice lets say on abortion, but believes gambling, junk food, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, should be outlawed, is not very pro-choice. The key when it comes to being pro-choice or not is whether you're pro-choice on abortion and sexuality, or things that you already agree with, but on issues that you might have problems with and wouldn't make those choice for yourself.

Do you believe that people should have the right to make their own personal decisions even if they may disagree with some of their decisions, or not. And if you tend to believe that people should be able to make their own personal decisions, then I suggest you're not only pro-choice, but you might be a Liberal as well. If you're not generally pro-choice, then you're not only not liberal, but probably illiberal which again is the opposite of what it means to be a Liberal.

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values. Things like free speech, personal autonomy, decentralization of power, checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government, individual rights, equal rights, equal justice for all, free speech, personal autonomy, and yes property rights and markets. Liberals don't want the government trying to do everything for everybody. Which is just one thing that separates us from Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and Theocrats on the Far-Right. And if you believe in the liberal values that I just suggested and not the illiberal values where personal freedom practically doesn't exist, because big government has so much power, then I suggest that you might be a Liberal.
Source: Central European University: Roger Scruton- Speaks on Liberalism and Open Society - Advocating liberalism and liberal democracy 


Friday, September 14, 2018

Politics and Prose: Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies'

Source: Politics and Prose- Rick Wilson at Politics and Prose in Washington 
Source: Politics and Prose: Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies'

To make the Donald Trump presidency look less depressing, at least to every insane, intelligent, honest  American let's imagine that Donald Trump is actually not President of the United States. That we never had not even one so-called reality TV star working in the most important political and government headquarters not just in the United States, but in the world. Let's just imagine that this was just some great story and mini-series put together by HBO or Showtime, maybe FX got into it. And this series was called Amateur Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or Reality Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, maybe the pros in Hollywood could come up with even better titles than that for this fictional mini-series.

Source: Go Fund Me- The Donald Trump 
If the Donald Trump presidency really was just a fictional series and the creators of that had an actor playing Trump or had Trump playing himself, this would be one of the best and funniest political fictional mini-series ever. Make it into a real series and give an entire season or multiple seasons and this show would be better and funnier than The West Wing. And The West Wing was a great funny show and in some cases even realistic. But that's unfortunately for every person who isn't a permanent resident at a mental institution, is not the reality. Our long national nightmare is heading into year three even if Democrats win back the House or Senate in a couple months or win back Congress completely, Donald Trump will still be President of the United States.

Monday, September 10, 2018

The Economist: John Stuart Mill- Against Tyranny of The Majority: The Father of Liberalism

Source: The Economist- Tyranny of The Majority 
Source: The Economist: Against The Tyranny of The Majority- The Father of Liberalism

What is this is really about is democracy and there several different forms of democracy which I'm going to explain here. And if you're familiar with this blog and my writing, you know that we believe in the liberal form of democracy which is liberal democracy which is what we advocate and I'm going to talk about here as well.

Source: The Federalist Papers- One of the father's of liberalism 
There are several different forms of democracy. Democracy in itself is just about voting and that citizens deserve the right to vote in their communities and country It's just about being able to not only vote, but having choices in who you vote for. Different party's and different candidates with the voters getting to decide who represents them in the legislature whether it's local, state, or national. Or who get to serve as the chief executive of their community, state, or country. Don't mistake democracy with freedom, because they're two different things. In free societies of course they elect their leaders and representatives through democratic elections. But you could have a country that's technically a democracy, but where you don't have much freedom. Like Russia or Venezuela, or Iran.

Source: Fact Myth- Our Founding Liberals 
What this blog promotes and what I promote with my blog is what's called liberal democracy. America is a liberal democracy, where yes we have multi-party elections, but that's not the basis of our government and not where our people get their freedom. We're a liberal democratic constitutional federal republic. With all sorts of individual rights including the right to vote, but all the right to free speech, the right to worship or not worship, the right to privacy, property rights, the right to sell-defense, even the right to education. All coming not from God or some great Socialist who decided that we should all have these rights, but from our Constitution that was created by our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

So when someone is talking about the tyranny of the majority, they're saying that lets say in a majoritarian democracy where majority vote always rules or in a social democracy with similar outcomes where a lot of policy decisions are made through referendum, what they mean by tyranny of the majority is that the majority getting to rule over the minority and be able to make decisions on their behalf simply because they have more votes than the minority.

Anyone with a basic social studies understanding of American government and our Constitution that you could get at any quality high school in this country, knows that the majority doesn't always get their way.

Look at the U.S. Senate where you almost always 60-100 votes to pass anything, or our constitutional amendment process, where you need 2/3 majority from both the House and Senate in Congress, as well as 34-50 states to approve any constitutional amendment. Or the U.S. Supreme Court that throws out laws that were passed with a majority because they're unconstitutional. Or our Electoral College where big states don't get to rule over smaller states in the presidential election simply because their states are bigger.

In a liberal democracy, of course we have the right to vote, but we have so many other individual rights as well both personal as well as economic. We own or rent our homes instead of government deciding where we live. Law enforcement needs a warrant in order to enter our homes and property.

Our right to free speech, the right to practice or not practice religion, equal rights and justice under law.

The right not to be discriminated against and denied access in society simply because of our race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The right to make our own personal decisions and choices which is protected by our 4th Amendment.

These are just some of the examples of what makes up a liberal democracy and why I'm a Liberal Democrat ideologically, because I believe in liberal democracy. The right to be left alone and live freely in society. Along with other great liberal values like free press, rule of law, checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and limited government.
Source: Academy of Ideas: John S. Mill- On Liberty- One of the first Liberals ever 

Friday, September 7, 2018

David Niewart: Glenn Beck's- Leftist Fascism Hour: The Newspeak Version of History

Source: David Niewart- Glenn Beck, when he was still at Fox News 
Source: David Niewart: Glenn Beck's- Leftist Fascism Hour: The Newspeak Version of History

What Jonah Goldberg and I guess Glenn Beck call Liberal Fascism ( which is at least a borderline Oxymoron ) and what I change to Leftist Fascism, are far-leftists both in America and around the world. Socialists and in some cases even democratic, as well as Communists who believe they know what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees with them are not worthy of even being heard. You oppose their government or their way of thinking, you must be either corrupt or a bigot or both. According to their lack of thinking and logic.

Source: Thread Reader- Author Jonah Goldberg, on Glenn Beck's show
You go to America and we now have a young generation of Americans who not only believe that free speech is dangerous, but question freedom and whether we should even have freedom. Who question whether people should be allowed to create their own personal wealth, but also make their own personal decisions. We now have a generation of Millennials who look up to people like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro revolutionary Communists from Cuba and South America and look down at people like John Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, men who believed in individualism and individual rights, even property rights as well as free speech and personal freedom.

The reason why I said Liberal Fascism is a borderline Oxymoron, because liberalism is based off of liberal democracy.

According to Wikipedia 

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

My personal politics is liberal democratic, not meaning I'm a Liberal and a Democrat both ideologically and my political party, but as someone who believes in liberal democracy as a Liberal. We now have a young generation of Millennial's an and older generation of Americans people who are late Baby Boomers and even older who question liberal democracy and see it as threats to their way of life . That if you allow all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, politics, etc the same individual freedom as what they would call the real Americans and the true American Patriots, that weakens their America and their way of life and that can't be tolerated according to the nationalistic tribalist's on the Right. And the other fringe you have a young generation who not only question liberal democracy, but seem to believe that socialism and communism, are legitimate alternatives to liberal democracy.

So to label both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini as not only as Liberals but as Fascists, well you would be half right. Socialists and Fascists for sure, but Liberal of course not. You can't be both illiberal and liberal, it's one or the other. It would be like someone who calls them self both a Socialist and a Conservative. The two political movements go against each other like cars driving on the opposite side of the street. Other than maybe Joe Stalin, it's hard to find another person who has ever lived anywhere in the world who is more illiberal ( not liberal ) than Adolf Hitler who sought out to murder people simply because of their ethnicity and that they weren't ethnic Germans, Nazi Germany attempted to murder every single European Jew.

I want to correct Glenn Beck and his Fox News Tea Party panel about one other thing. The word Progressive, is used as a substitute for not just Liberal, but every other political faction on the Left and even Right, when the fact is Progressive is a real political term and has real meaning. You can be Progressive and Liberal just like someone can be tall and strong or tall and fat, but tall is not another word for strong or fat, they're different physical conditions and attributes. Progressive, is different from both Liberal and Socialist. You can be a Liberal who believes in progress through government action which is what a Progressive is which is someone who believes in progress through government action. Someone like a Theodore Roosevelt. But you can be a Conservative who believes in progress through government action and be a right-wing Progressive, someone like Nelson Rockefeller.

I respect Glenn Beck sometimes. I had more respect for him about a year ago when he was one of the strongest never-trumpers around, but then when I guess he saw that was hurting his bottomline his criticism of President Donald Trump and his Nationalist movement is now far away and infrequent. But he and his Tea Party crew are just dead wrong about Liberals and liberalism. You can't be a Liberal and also believe that people should be murdered simply because of their race and ethnicity. And you can't be a Liberal if you believe that people who disagree with you don't have a right to be heard. Those aren't liberal values, but illiberal values whether they come from the Right or the Left.


Thursday, September 6, 2018

Rowan and Martin's Laugh In: Martha Mitchell- Isn't Overstepping Cocktail Party

Source: Rowan and Martin's Laugh In- Actress portrayal of Martha Mitchell 
Source: Rowan and Martin's Laugh In: Martha Mitchell- Isn't Overstepping Cocktail Party

I said this on my Google+ and Twitter pages last night, but could you imagine Martha Mitchell with a Twitter page back during Watergate? She was like a gossip columnist with inside accounts of what was going on during Watergate simply because she was married to the Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell. Not that I believed he was filling in her chatty wife who was basically the motormouth of Washington during the early and mid 1970s. Who would share any little dirty secret that she could come up with regardless of who it might help or hurt.

Source: World News- Washington motormouth Martha Mitchell 
The best gossip columnists are the gossip columnists not just with inside sources, but credible inside sources so what they write and say in public doesn't sound like fiction or a like a good soap opera, but there's real truth to what they're revealing about someone or some people, or some situation. Hollywood actress Shelley Winters, was a gossip columnist, as well as an author, with a great sense of humor who was very bright in general, but with her humor as well in-between acting parts. Martha Mitchell who just happened to be the wife of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States in Attorney General John Mitchell, fit that bill as well.


Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Libertarianism.Org: Free Thoughts- Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck- The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

Source: Libertarianism.Org- The perfect title for this piece 
Source: Libertarianism.Org: Free Thoughts- Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck- The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

If there is a moral collapse of Evangelical America, it can be summed up in two words, which are Donald Trump. I'm talking about the political wing of the Christian-Right in America who are dominated by Evangelicals who base their political on their interpretations of the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. And they see Donald Trump who just a few years ago was an Atheist or at best an Agnostic where religion had little if no impact on his life until he became a Presbyterian a few years ago, the Christian-Right sees Donald Trump and his presidency as their ticket to accomplish a lot of things that they couldn't do with really any other Republican President ever.

The Christian-Right, has made a bargain with devil ( so to speak ) with Donald Trump and have calculated that they're willing to tolerate anything that Donald Trump does all his bad personal behavior, maturity, temper, hate for any dissent against him, lack of experience and knowledge about the issues that he talks so much about and has to deal with as President, his bigotry towards people who don't support him and have decided to sum up all of President Trump's bad behavior into, "he's not a typical politician and does things differently."

And the Christian-Right have just swallowed President Trump's talking points when it comes to negative news about him into saying, "well, we don't know these things are true." Or "well, these Republicans even who don't like Donald Trump are just saying these bad things about him, because they're part of the establishment and are simply trying to defend that." Just as long as President Trump delivers on what he promised the Christian-Right. And appoints judges and justices that will one day will rule that abortion, and same-sex marriage are illegal, and there's no constitutional right to privacy even under the 4th Amendment. Which would be mean big government could then come into Americans personal lives and decide who Americans can sleep with and do with their personal time.

The Christian-Right-Wing of the Republican Party, that back in the 1990s saw pornography, same-sex marriage, and adultery, as threats to national security and morality and therefor must be outlawed in America, are now saying that they don't care about those things at least when it comes to the people they support politically. Adulterous affairs and pornography that their Republicans might have been involved with are none of the government's business, because these Republicans are their people and on their side. And because of this have lost all of their credibility when it comes to speaking about the personal lives and personal behavior of Americans including politicians, because they back and defend politicians who've lived similar lives and have done similar things. Whether it;'s adultery, pornography, or whatever it may be.


Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Salon: Timothy Denevi- Hunter S. Thompson in Chicago, 1968: 'The Battle For The Democratic Party's Soul'

Source: Salon Magazine- Hunter Thompson and the 1968 Democratic Party National Convention 
Source: Salon: Timothy Denevi- Hunter S. Thompson in Chicago, 1968: 'The Battle For The Democratic Party's Soul'

If 1967 was the summer of love, then 1968 was the summer of discontentment, revolution, upheaval, whatever other big words that you prefer to voice a national unhappiness with the country and how things were going. It was the summer where once again millions of Baby Boomers were coming of age and pissed off at society, but especially the Vietnam War and feeling the need not just to speak out against the war, but to make their feelings known and to demand real change or face real consequences. The people would face those consequences being the government at three levels, local state and federal.

If you were a Baby Boomer in 1968, ( an American born in the 1940s and 50s ) life for you was pretty swell ( to use a word from the 1950s ) before you deiced to become a rebel and take on the man and the establishment that was created to give you a life where you could live freely and not have to worry about crime, poverty, being able to get a good education including college. Especially if you were of Anglo-Saxon background, ( people of English ethnicity ) just as long as toed the party line ( so to speak ) and weren't a disrupter. You weren't a woman who had some wild idea that you were going to become a lawyer. Or an African-American who had the nerve to enter a quality high school or go to college.

I have mixed feelings about the 1960s especially the late 1960s as someone who wasn't born until about ten years after the summer of 1968 where the only protests and the closest things I got to see to rioting in highs school, were students complaining about the low quality of food at lunch or students getting into fights at the nearby McDonald's because someone believed someone took one of their fries. I love the individualism and the personal freedom of that decade as a Liberal. This feeling that being an American was about being yourself and not having to follow in your parents footsteps, especially your father's just because that's what they decided to do with their lives.

But on the other side I hate the violence of that decade especially 1968. The rioting, the high crime rates, law enforcement going to far in how they responded to the young protesters. Young Boomers, who were given all the opportunities in the world to make great lives for themselves and instead of feeling grateful that instead of growing up in some authoritarian state where the government decides what kind of lives everyone in the country is going to have, they grew up in America where they had that freedom to make those decisions for themselves and instead of feeling grateful, they become political terrorists in many cases. Deciding to rob banks as a political statement because they claimed to hate our capitalist economic system. Far-Left socialist groups like The Weather Underground and others.

I get the opposition to the Vietnam War and if was a young man back then I would've hated that war and just what I've read, seen, and heard about it I hate that war myself. And I get this feeling that it's time for the Democratic Party to change and not just oppose the Vietnam War outright but create a new politics by abandoning the right-wing Dixiecrats and moving the Democratic Party in a more leftist direction. Socialist to be more accurate, with groups like Students For a Democratic Society supporting people like Senator George McGovern and others.

But that's what liberal democracy is for. You don't like the direction that the country is going in, you're more than free to speak out and campaign against it, and even offer an alternative vision for where you believe the country should go. But when you don't win and get your way, the answer is to not turn to violence to try to force your views and policies which is what The Weather Underground and other Socialist groups did back then. But instead take your losses and regroup and get ready for the next elections.
Source: E.P. James MacAdams: Hunter S. Thompson On Richard Nixon - The eyes of Hunter Thompson on 1968 

Monday, September 3, 2018

The Hollywood Reporter: Erik Liberman- Jayne Mansfield: The First Reality Star?

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Baby Jayne Mansfield 
Source: The Hollywood Reporter: Erik Liberman: Jayne Mansfield: The First Reality Star?

Jayne Mansfield as the first reality star? Well, their several answers that I could give to that.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Baby Jayne Mansfield 
One, reality star or reality TV, those terms didn't come into American culture until the late 1990s. Jayne Mansfield, died in a horrible car crash in 1967. So just based on that, no obviously not. And reality stars or reality TV, aren't actually reality stars or reality TV. They're celebrities who are famous for acting out and being outrageous. For getting kicked out of parties and nightclubs ( just ask Khloe Kardashian and Paris Hilton ) who in many cases are simply famous because of their father's last name. ( Again, ask Khloe Kardashian and Paris Hilton )

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Kitten Jayne Mansfield 
And reality TV has as much to do with reality as people claiming to see UFO's in New Mexico. I would have just as hard of a time believing someone like that who claims they're sober, let alone saw any UFO's. Reality TV, is nothing more than amateur acting hour where cast members ( which is what they are ) are encouraged perhaps even ordered to act out and be outrageous on the show by the director and producer. So no, I don't believe Jayne Mansfield was one of the first reality TV stars, but one of if not the first tabloid stars in the TV age. Where she was famous for being famous to a certain extent, but had so much more than than beyond her goddess looks and baby girl face and personality, including a keen intelligence and wit.

If you look at Jayne Mansfield's career, you could point at two movies that were essentially about what would be called reality TV, but about 40 years later. You could also look at her post-Hollywood career where she's literally making her own movies that would be like what are called reality TV shows. Where a camera crew would follow her around and it would be like a day in the life of Jayne Mansfield. She went on tour in Italy in 1965-66 and had a camera crew following her around and she would narrate the film herself.

The first film that Jayne does that was sort about reality TV was a movie called The Girl Can't Help it, where she plays the opposite of herself. And this might be the first so-called reality TV movie ever where a Hollywood filmmaker who hasn't had a big hit in several years, but happens to be dating a blonde baby-face Goddess played by Jayne Mansfield and decides that he can make a star out of her simply because of her physical appearance and personality. Sound like any so-called reality stars today?

The second film that she did that was sort of about reality TV, was Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter from 1957. Where she plays a young popular actress who is tired of the her dumb blonde image ( just like the real Jayne Mansfield ) and hired a publicity man to give her a new image as a woman who doesn't go from man to man and is ready settle down. Jayne, plays herself in Rock Hunter and gives an Oscar performance as herself.

The dumb blonde image about Jayne Mansfield, was exactly that just an image that people saw about her and believed that must be who she really is. This gorgeous, adorable, sexy woman, who needs help tying her shoes and spelling her first name. ( Sort of like Kelly Bundy on Married with Children ) But the facts are she was a very sharp, very funny woman, who always knew exactly what she was doing. The problem that she had is that she didn't know her place in Hollywood. ( To sound cold ) and saw herself as more than a comedic actress and comedian who was perfect for comedies including musical comedies like The Girl Can't Help It. And wanted to be a dramatic actress instead. Not that she couldn't do drama, but she was cut out for comedy.

I see Jayne Mansfield, as a Bette Midler but not as talented as someone who was put on this planet to sing and make people laugh. Bette, does comedy shows at her concerts and is hilarious in all of her Hollywood roles. I believe if Jayne just stuck with comedy and music, I think we're talking about one of the best comedic and musical stars certainly of her generation and as someone who might have had more ability than even Marilyn Monroe in this area. And without Jayne's horrible car accident in 1967 and had she lived a normal life in years and just stick to doing what she did best which was comedy and music, she never leaves Hollywood because there would've always been work for comedians and comedic actresses, especially for woman like Jayne who was so adorable which was one of the things that made her so funny as a person as well as her quickness, as well as so gorgeous and sexy.
Source: BBC: Jayne Mansfield- Full-Length Documentary- Baby Jayne Mansfield 



Friday, August 31, 2018

Foundation Interviews: George Carlin- On Why It's Important To Not Care At All

Source: Foundation Interviews- George Carlin,  being interviewed in 2007 
Source: Foundation Interviews: George Carlin- 'On Why It's Important Not To Give a Shit'

Would like to hear more from George Carlin on why he believes it's not important to give a shit ( as he put it ) because that can be interpreted in multiple ways which is exactly what I'm going to do here and lay out what he might be talking about here.

According to Wikipedia- a Nihilist is someone who

"Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2]

Nihilism has also been described as conspicuous in or constitutive of certain historical periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch;[3] and some religious theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[4] and many aspects of modernity[5] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of theistic doctrine entails nihilism."

Is this what George Carlin meant when he said that it's important to bot give a shit? That he's someone who believed, "that a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
dogmatic atheists and nihilists could never defend the value of human life"
synonyms: skeptic, negativist, cynic, pessimist; More
historical
a supporter of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order."

If that's the case then George Carlin and Donald Trump have plenty in common. They believe there's no such thing as a truth or at least one truth that nothing is real and everything is subjective to what the person at the time says or believes it is. If this is the case as far as what Carlin believes when he said it's important to not give a shit, than I can't respect him for that. Because are such things as rights and wrongs.

I get skepticism and I'm a skeptic myself and alway take the word of reason or the word of faith and trust only what I know and understand including people. Trust people and things that have earned my trust based on their records and my interactions with them. Not looking into their eyes and claiming to read their souls and saying that I trust this person or that person because I've claimed to viewed their soul and see that they are a good person.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

The New Democrat: John McCain- An American Hero Who Defined Heroism

Source: CBS News- Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John McCain on Capitol Hill 
Source: CBS News: John McCain- Had Wicked Wit That He Often Aimed At Himself

There are a lot of great things about Senator John McCain that we can respect and love about him, that I respect and love about him. His service in the Vietnam War where after he gets captured after his plane gets shot down he refuses to go home early, so his fellow Navy officers don't have to stay there as POW's and go through additional punishment and torture.

His straight forth honesty and candor, which for a politician especially a long time member of Congress where John McCain first gets elected to the House in 1982 and then the Senate in 1986 where he would remain a Senator until his death last Saturday, honest politicians especially honest members of Congress is about as common in Washington as blizzards and hurricanes in Arizona in August.

Members of Congress the most honest of them, tend to tell people and the media what they're thinking with spin. They won't tell you directly what they're about to do and thinking by just saying it, but instead will use spin to say exactly what they're thinking and about to do. Senator McCain, wasn't like that. If he didn't like you or respect you, he would just flat say that as Donald Trump has found out over and over. John McCain, had this ability and political skill to do what he wanted and take any position he wanted regardless of the political consequences and get away with it, because he had this AAA credit rating with his voters who told them that they might not agree with him on everything, but they respect him and the positions that he takes and why takes them, because he would make the case to them.

But the one thing that I'll remember most about John McCain, will always be his sense of humor, especially as someone who also writes political satire and humor on occasion. When you live the life of a John McCain and not only fight in the Vietnam War, but get shot down in it and if that's not bad enough you get captured by the other team and held in captivity and tortured for the next five years and manage to survive all of that and make a great life for yourself after that, you almost have to have a great sense of humor and be able to laugh about life especially yourself just to keep a positive face and perspective about yourself and life in general.

There are several lines about Senator McCain that I'll always remember and they're all about politics and his time in Congress and one of them having to do with the Congressional spending bills that the House and Senate have to deal with every year to fund the government. And if you're familiar with Senator McCain, you know he was a rock solid Conservative especially as it related to fiscal policy and wasn't just a fiscal Conservative, but somewhat maverick if not fanatic about it.

Congress is famous for a lot of bad things especially, but one of those things are known as porkbarrel projects. Money that a Representative to Senator manages to get attached to some spending bill that is directly related to their district or state that everyone else has to pay for that only benefits this district or a part of this state or that state. Senator McCain, would always say about these porkbarrel spending bills that Congress doesn't spend money like drunken sailors, but that Congress gives drunken sailors a bad name when it comes to spending. He was always making fun and attacking the waste in the Federal budget and all of the additional waste that Congress would try to attach.

Senator McCain, represents not the golden age of American politics or even Congress, but a time when Democrats were Democrats and Republicans were Republicans, but that they were competitors and not too countries looking to destroy each other. A time when Congress wasn't like the Vietnam War, but more like a playoff football game where both teams wanted to win, but also recognized the other team's right to exist and respected eacb other. A time when governing and campaigning weren't separate from each other because politics and government have and will always go together, but a time when politics didn't replace governing.

Where the two parties could work together to do the things that needed to be done and should've been done. The speech that he gave when he came back to Capitol Hill last summer right before the Senate was going to vote on an ObamaCare repeal bill and him talking about the need for Democrats and Republicans to work together, is a perfect example of that. And is someone that won't just be missed, but someone who won't be replaced either. There is is no one else in Washington especially in Congress that is worth risking their political careers to do the right thing anymore, now that Senator John McCain has passed and is what will be missed about him the most in Washington.
Source: CNN: See Barack Obama, John McCain, At The 2008 Al Smith Dinner - Senator John McCain, speaking at the 2008 Al Smith Dinner 

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

LeAnn Rimes: Life Goes On

Source: LeAnn Rimes Official- LeAnn Rimes's Life Goes On
Source: LeAnn Rimes: Life Goes On- Official Music Video

Source LeAnn Rimes

"You sucked me in and played my mind
Just like a toy
You would crank and wind
Baby, I would give you to what you want
You left me lying in a pool of doubt
If you're still thinking your the daddy mack
Ya shouldn't known better
But ya didn't
And I can't go back
Oh life goes on
And it's only gonna make me strong
It's a fact
Once you get on board
Say good-bye
'Cause you can't go back
Oh it's a fight
And I really want to get it right
Where I'm at
It's my life before me
Got this feeling
That I can't go back
Wish I knew then what I know now
You held all the cards
And sold me out
Baby, shame on you if you fool me once
Shame on me if you fool me twice
You've been a pretty hard case to crack
Should've of known better
But I didn't
And I can't go back."

Source: Fun For Funny- LeAnn Rimes's Life Goes On 
I believe this is one my favorite songs now and certainly one of my favorite LeAnn Rimes song. Her music from the Coyote Ugly days and album is really what I love about her music. Can't Fight The Moonlight, How do I live. Not a country music fan even though I like country girls, which is really a different subject, but I like this song which isn't a country song. LeAnn, is from the pop country school of country music that came out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Where country is mixed in with pop. Shania Twain, graduated from that school and in the mid 2000s Gretchen Wilson and Miranda Lambert took that a step further and address classic rock and even blues to their country music. With their music really being about country or rural life, but with a harder rock edge to it. One of the reasons why I like Life Goes On is because it's not a country song.

About the song itself, what LeAnn is saying here is that what won't kill her will just make her stronger. Which is sort of cliche now but it's right on point. This song is about a relationship that went south and she's saying that it's time to move on and that life goes on for her without this man in her life that I guess did her wrong. Reminds me a lot of Tina Turner's I Don't Wanna Fight from 1993. And the point of the song is so spot on and so honest about what life is really about which is that we all start off life with a steep learning curve and the only way to really live life is buy learning about it. Which includes making mistakes, not intentionally at least for most us but learning by doing learning from experience including making mistakes and even bad mistakes. And using those mistakes to improve ourselves and make us into better people.

And that is what this song is about that she went through a rough relationship with a guy and suffered from it because she trusted someone who hurt her over and over and guess finally woke up and decided it's time to move on and that life really goes on for her and that has to be without him. The whole line about which sounds corny but is very true that, "shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice" is a perfect example of that and she finally got it that this guy is playing her and can't be trusted and it's time for her to dump him. That she should've known better but didn't and she can't go back because life goes on. Great song with a great message to it.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Jeffrey Tucker: Alt-Right and Right-Wing Collectivism

Source: The Rubin Report- Author Jeffrey Tucker, talking to Dave Rubin 
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Jeffrey Tucker: Alt-Right and Right-Wing Collectivism

As Dave Rubin said, we know about left-wing collectivism or people who understand and follow political philosophy do. Which is the two branches of socialism meaning democratic socialism and communism. Not progressivism which is a different philosophy all together and a lot less collectivist where you have both a Left progressivism like the Franklin Roosevelt's of the world. And a Right progressivism the Nelson Rockefeller's of the world, Richard Nixon would be another one and Harry Truman would also be a Left-Progressive. But there's also a right-wing form of collectivism in America and they have several branches and none of them are very conservative.

Source: Amazon- Jeffrey Tucker's book about right-wing collectivism 
The three branches of right-wing collectivism at least as I see it are the Christian-Right, the Alt-Right and Nationalists. There not Conservatives at least in a political and constitutional sense as people who believe in conserving the Constitution and all of our individual rights.

Christian-Right

As Christian -Right Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore said himself last year, the book he goes by that defines his politics is the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. That's a paraphrase, but that's pretty close to exactly what he's saying there. Christian-Conservatives ( or Christian-Nationalists, as I call them ) use their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible to define their politics. That their religious beliefs should be what governs the country. And that everyone should be forced to live by their Christian moral values.

Nationalists

Similar to Christian-Nationalists are people who believe their national values and how they see their country trumps everyone else's and that their country should really have nothing to do with what goes on with the rest of the world short of having trade deals that benefit their country. Nationalists, tend to view themselves as the real Patriots in the country and everyone who disagrees with them as un-patriototic or in an American sense as the Un-Americans. That they the real Patriots as Nationalists, are deserving of our constitutional rights and protections and people who oppose them politically as Un-American and traitors who are not deserving of those same individual rights.

Alt-Right

Not all Nationalists are racists, sexists, homophobes, and people who hate other Europeans like Jews, Italians, Slavs, Latinos, or people of Spanish background, and others. But when I think of the Alt-Right at least I think of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan and other European-American predominately Anglo-Saxon racist political and even political terrorist groups. Similar to Nationalists they see themselves as the true American Patriots and the real Americans, but not just people who disagree with them as being Un-American, but people who don't look like them as Un-American. And not just Non-European-Americans like African and Asian-Americans, but other European-Americans like Italians, Jews, Spaniards, Slavs, and other Europeans who have dark hair and olive complexion. And that these people should not just be disallowed to live freely, but in many cases shouldn't be allowed to live at all.

Collectivism, whether it's right-wing or left-wing is this belief that individualism and personal freedom and in the Far-Left's case economic freedom as well are dangerous things. That the world is a complicated place and therefor you need a big centralized government to set people straight so they live moral productive lives and are taken care of. Both right-wing collectivism and left-wing collectivism, are illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) because they oppose individualism and individual rights and that individual freedom needs to be severely constricted if not eliminated so we can have a moral productive society. That's what collectivism is whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right. 

Monday, August 27, 2018

Keith Hughes: Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments- Explained: Article V Convention of States

Source: Keith Hughes- Mark Levin's so-called Liberty Amendments
Source: Keith Hughes: Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments Explained: Article V Convention of States

I'm going to make a case for why Mark Levin's so-called Liberty Amendments are anti-conservative and you'll see what I mean by that.

When I think of a Conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving  and conserving what they believe and a lot of other people believe is worth conserving. Things like free speech, right to privacy, separation of powers, equal protection, checks and balances, our three levels of government so governmental power is not overly centralized and that you even have checks and balances especially with the Federal Government so the executive doesn't become too powerful.

If you're a Conservative at least in the conservative-libertarian sense you shouldn't be a fan of this because it ends up limiting the power of the people at least as far as Americans being able to elect their own members of Congress at least in the Senate with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and instead of conserving the Constitution and amendments, it throws at least one of them out as far as the 17th Amendment.

The one amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I like relates to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguably 9 of the most powerful people in the country and yet they're not accountable to anyone. I'm one that believes that politics and the Supreme Court is mixed together too much, that Justices take an anti- conservative approach to their rulings and rule on cases and laws based on their own personal politics, instead of whether they believe the law is constitution or not.

So I don't believe Supreme Court should have to run for election and be accountable to the people that way. But I do believe our Justices should be held accountable by the people through the President and U.S. Senate with term limits. That each Justice should serve terms and then have to be reappointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve another term. Actual terms limits for the Chief Justice and only allow for them to serve 8 years let's say.

The only other so-called Liberty Amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I believe is interesting is his 9th Amendment that would make it easier to amend the Constitution and allow for states to do that themselves. Another anti-democratic amendment both small d and big d, because one of the reasons why Republicans have 34-50 governorships in the country when you're talking about states is because they're now basically a rural, blue-collar, Anglo-Saxon party where a lot of their members of their party have been in the country for hundreds of years. With the Democratic Party being an ethnic and racially diverse big city party that lives in big states with big cities

The reason why Levin's 9th Amendment is anti-Democratic with a big D is because if you allow for states to amend the Constitution by themselves without approval from Congress, Republican rural states and there are a lot of them could amend the Constitution simply based on their own politics. One of the great things about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is that Americans regardless of where they live all have the same constitutional rights as everyone else in the country under the U.S. Constitution. With states being allowed to make their own state laws as long as they're within the Constitution. Levin's 9th Amendment would change that. The reason why this amendment is anti-conservative, because again Conservatives are supposed to believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. The 9th Amendment would make it easier to weaken the Constitution.

Again, if you're a Conservative you believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. Not trying to blow it up because you're worried that the Democratic Party will have more power in the future simply because of current demographic trends and therefor need to step in now to limit the Democratic Party's potential for new political power in the future. You could make a case that Mark Levin's proposal for a balanced budget amendment and holding the Supreme Court accountable through term limits is very conservative. But most his other proposals are simply anti-democratic both as they relate to the Democratic Party and simply used to hurt one party in favor of the other through the Constitution and limiting American voters rights to decide who gets to serve them in Congress. 

Friday, August 24, 2018

HBO: George Carlin- Balance The Budget: Concentration Camps For Outsiders

Source: HBO- Part of George Carlin'e 1996 HBO performance 
Source: HBO: George Carlin- Balance The Budget

George Carlin's comedic approach ( that's right, I don't actually think he's serious here ) to balancing the budget reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where Jack Warden, plays a convicted murderer who is sentenced to life without parole to another planet. A life of isolation where he's sent to another livable planet where he'll have all the food, water, housing, everything that he would need to survive for the rest of his natural life. The catch being that he'll live there in complete isolation without anyone to talk to, but with the freedom to do whatever he wants to on that planet all by himself. For example, he could have sex on this far away distant planet, just by himself.

George Carlin's solution to criminal violence

Put all the violent criminals together in one state after you forcefully removed all the decent people there and let the violent criminals beat the hell out of each other and even kill each other, just as long as they're not hurting or killing anyone else. Which is sort of like my liberal approach to personal freedom which is allowing for people to do whatever they want to, just as long as they're doing it to them self or to another consenting adult.

I'll give Carlin an A for interesting ( or should that be a I for interesting, me and my spelling ) the problem is that we have a Fourth, Fifth, and 8th amendments to our Constitution. As much as Carlin and I'm sure some of his supporters at least also disagree with this, people in Kansas or whatever rural state you want to use are not just people, but also Americans and therefor have the same constitutional rights as people from San Francisco, Boston or New York. Even if they're farmers and their parents gave them two first names, because they couldn't decide on a single first name to give them.

George Carlin's solution to sex crimes

I gotta go along with George Carlin's solution when it comes to sex crimes. If these assholes need to have sex so much in a nonconsensual way, put them all together in some institution and let them do that. They're can screw each other until their dicks fall off and even rape each other. Just as long as they're not screwing or raping our women and girls. I could go along with that.

George Carlin's solution to drug addiction

How about we deport all of them to Holland or Portugal and they can get as high as New York skyscrapers all they want to and drive while they're high and drunk, just as long as they're not able to hit anyone who isn't high or drunk and by enlarge lives a responsible life. I could see why Holland or Portugal would have a problem with us sending them our drug addicts, but it might be worth looking into.

George Carlin's solution to crazy people

How about we send all of our mental patients to that planet that Jack Warden was sent to on that Twilight Zone episode, which might just be Arizona or New Mexico and they can live out of this world as much as they want, just as long as they can't hurt anyone who is not also crazy. The problem with that is we have a lot of crazy people who aren't in mental institutions or even in prisons because our mental institutions are already overcrowded and a lot of these people already vote.

Balancing the Federal budget in Washington is like swimming to London from New York, because you're too cheap to buy a plane ticket or take a boat, I'll believe it when I see it. And when that happens peace will have broken out between Israel and Palestine and people will be flying pigs because they don't want to buy plane tickets. Washington right now doesn't have much ability to even do the simple things that they're currently required to do by statue and by the Constitution like passing a budget and appropriations bills, so why they would they be able to balance a budget when borrowing money from China is so much easier politically.


Thursday, August 23, 2018

Keith Hughes: McCarthyism Explained- US History Review

Source: Keith Hughes- Senator Joe McCarthyism explained 
Source: Keith Hughes: McCarthyism Explained- US History Review

To talk about McCarthyism I think you have to talk about Senator Joe McCarthy who in the early and mid 1950s was the ranking Republican on the Senate Investigations Committee first as Ranking Member and then as Chairman. And when Republicans won back Congress in 1952, Senator McCarthy becomes Chairman of the Senate Investigations Committee thanks to the Dwight Eisenhower sweep where the Republican win back the White House, House, and Senate all in the same election.

Source: Professor Girard- The Joe McCarthy Era 
Because of the landslide Republican victory in 1952 Senator McCarthy is now one of the most powerful members not just of the Senate, but the entire Congress as well. And with that now has the power to launch his investigation into supposed Communists in the U.S. Government. That is how we get what became McCarthyism and this hyper partisan, tribalist, guilt by association, nationalistic Far-Right movement in America, that came right after the House Un-American Activities Committee that was supposed to investigate Communists in Hollywood.

To talk about Senator McCarthy, you also have to talk about what McCarthy and his movement represented in America back then and still represents today. This us against them tribalistic-nationalist mentality that they're supposed to be the real Americans and anyone who disagrees with them must hate America and therefore should be under investigation because they're working for the other side and not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the so-called real Americans the McCarthyite's who want to stamp out communism and Communists in America at all costs even if that means violating Americans constitutional rights like the First Amendment and Fourth Amendments.

And to talk about Joe McCarthy, you also have to talk about not just how he became so powerful in the Senate with the position that he obtained, but how that movement was allowed to get started in the first place. The Cold War and the start of America's long battle with communism with Soviet Russia and other communist and authoritarian states around the world and this hysteria that the Communists are coming and are going to take our country away from us and take away everything that we believe in and Senator McCarthy being a smart enough politician to see how he could play that and use it to his political advantage and his political skills the speeches, as well as radio and TV appearances that he gave back in the early and mid 1950s is how his movement was able to come about at all.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The Atlantic: Daniela Sherer- It's Good To Be Rebel

Source: The Atlantic Magazine- Daniela Sherer, on being a rebel 
Source: The Atlantic: Daniela Sherer- It's Good To Be a Rebel

I start off this piece arguing that it's good to be a rebel, but I would add as long as you're doing it for the right reasons.

Source: Missy Matthews- Damn straight!
For example, I wouldn't recommend going to a country club and playing golf with your hair down to your back wearing black leather vest with no shirt, leather jeans, and black leather boots like some rebel biker simply because you want to look different from all the other golfers. That might be a point where you would want to try to fit in and wear a golf outfit and you might even be able to find a golf outfit that doesn't put you back in the 1950s. Or ordering a cheeseburger and a beer at a French restaurant and when the waiter tells you, "sir, we don't serve cheeseburgers here", you complain about bad service simply to sound cool. And perhaps show up at the same French restaurant in your biker outfit. Good luck even getting in to the French restaurant if you do.

Source: Brainy Quote- Actor Clint Eastwood on being a rebel 
There's a time and place for everything and always a time to do the right thing whether it's popular or not. But the problem with American culture today unlike with the Baby Boomers from the 1960s and early 70s is that today being an outsider unless you're in politics is almost considered a sin. People today are almost squarely judged superficially. By what cellphone they have. What coffee they drink. What coffee house they go to and do they go to a coffee house at all, because if you go to and hangout at coffee houses on a regular basis and seen walking on the street with coffee cup staring at your smartphone, you're considered cool. But if you don't and your life isn't driven by what's going on with your smartphone and what people are saying on your favorite social media networks or apps, you're considered an outsider.

Where back in the mid and late 1960s especially, perhaps the early and mid 1970s, the cool people were the outsiders who ran against the social establishment and status quo. Back then Americans weren't judged by how many celebrities they know and who they're favorite celebrities are or do they even have any. Or what their favorite so-called reality TV shows and cable shows were, or did they even watch those shows at all. And of course a lot these changes have to do with new technology. Cable TV wasn't regularly available until the late 1970s or 1980s, wasn't around at all until 1974-75. The personal computer didn't come out until 1975 with laptops coming out 10-15 years after that. The internet and cell phones comes out in the early 1990s.

My point being that new technology has a lot to do with the character and behavior of Americans now simply because we have access to so much more information today than we did 50 years ago at the height of the Cultural Revolution. And we simply know so much more about each other than we did 50 years ago. And because of this people feel the need to be like their favorite Hollywood stars or athletes, look, talk, and act like them. And people who decide to just be themselves as the person they were born as, the person who isn't one of the first 100 people to buy the latest smartphone or whatever the device is and doesn't know which rehab facility Charlie Sheen is currently staying at or what's the reason for Paris Hilton's latest arrest and what jail she's at, they look like outsiders and "like so no awesome and uncool."

As someone who has always been an outsider and has never fit in very well with the so-called in-crowd, who doesn't get drunk just to have a good time and let people know how much I drink and doesn't even need to get drunk to have a good time and doesn't even drink alcohol at all, I'm speaking from experience when I tell you that it's hard to be a rebel an outsider in modern American culture.

I'm a man who puts cheddar cheese on his spaghetti for crying out loud which is probably considered a sin in the Italian culture, mayonnaise on my cheeseburgers, and I could go on. My point being the only person I know how to be is the person I was born as and see the in mirror which is myself. I'm an individualist who believes in individualism simply because I don't know any other way to live. I'm just not a good enough actor to play the roles of a the latest reality TV star or new tech junkie. And if you're going to also be a rebel, try being yourself first and don't just standout in order to standout. Be true and real to yourself, which is as rebellious as anyone needs to be in America today.