John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Deirdre McCloskey: Marxism in Two Minutes

Source: Learn Liberty-
Source: Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Deirdre McCloskey: Marxism in Two Minutes

As I explained with communism last week and explaining what communism is, the basic definition of communism is that communism is the state owning the means of production in society. Someone who is a hard core Communist believes the state should own and manage the entire economy and that property rights and property ownership, are outlawed. In a true communist state people wouldn't even own their own homes or automobiles. No such thing as small businesses with people owning their own restaurants. All private property including businesses and personal property, would be owned by the national government. This is basically the basic definition of what is called Marxist/Communism.

According to Wikipedia, "Marxism has developed into many different branches and schools of thought, though now and there is no single definitive Marxist theory." Communism and Marxism, has developed into many aspects of a broader political philosophy and we don't know if Karl Marx himself ever went as far and developed his own political philosophy beyond his theories on economics.

When I think of Marxist/Communists today and going back to pre-Cold War is that people who do believe the state should own the means of production in society, but that there political philosophy goes beyond just economic policy. A Communist to me anyway and even so-called Democratic Socialists who perhaps aren't pure Communists and do have some democratic leanings with those leavings being more social democratic and collectivist, than liberal democratic and don't put much if any emphasis when it comes to individual rights and aren't fans of individualism at all, are people who see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and selfish. And therefor you need a big centralized national state to make most if not all the decisions for society. And to prevent people from being greedy and to think for themselves. As well as to develop opposition to the state.

My personal definition of a Communist or Marxist/Communist if you prefer, even though I don't believe we'll ever know what Karl Marx thought beyond economic policy, is someone who is anti-individual and pro-collectivist. Someone who is against individualism and pro-statism and collectivism. Sees personal autonomy and individualism as dangerous and believes once you give people the freedom to make their own decisions, they'll end up making bad decisions that the state will end up having to pay for. Or will make great decisions for themselves and end up doing much better than society as a whole which is what Communists view as selfish.

This definition of communism can be applied to more than just economic policy and property rights, but big government in general when it comes to the nanny state as well. But the political correctness movement on the Far-Left and Far-Right, that seeks to eliminate and censor free speech that they disagree with and find offensive. If you're asking me that would be my definition of a Communist. A and to a large extent Socialists in general. Even though Democratic Socialists to tend to be more democratic obviously and a believer in at least some individualism when it comes to private property and the right to privacy, and some personal autonomy.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Talking Union: Nathan Newman- Remembering Martin Luther King and His Roots in The Labor Socialist Movement

Source: Talking Union-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Imagine if we had more American Socialists who had the character and courage  to be out front about their socialist politics and not feel the need to hide behind other political labels, like Senator Bernie Sanders, Dr. Jill Stein today, but back in the 1960s Dr. Martin L. King. America would be a lot less ignorant politically. Americans with liberal leanings who believe in liberal democratic values ( not necessarily Democratic Party values ) would be a lot more open about being a Liberal and probably be proud Liberals, because they would know that they’re not Socialists or Communists, but instead Liberals who believe in liberal democracy. . In Britain, Europe, and perhaps Canada, you don’t have closeted Socialists which is what we have in America. Socialists there stand up for their socialist politics and are proud to be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists and in like in France and Sweden, are proud to be known as Socialists. In America, not so much.

As I argued last week Dr. Martin King, wasn’t just a Socialist, but a proud Socialist and Democratic Socialist at that. Edgar Hoover’s FBI believed that Dr. King was a Communist and working with Communist Party USA to build his movement. There were Communists involved in the civil rights movement, but Dr. King was a Democratic Socialists politically and ideologically and believed in democratic socialism and not communism or other authoritarian ideologies. His labor movement that he was  big part of and advocating for garbage collectors in Memphis and workers in other big America cities was part of his democratic socialist movement and what he was advocating for politically. Arguing for workers rights and that all American workers regardless of race should be allowed to organize.

Dr. King believed that American capitalism, along with forced state segregation for the races in America, especially in the South, was failing to meet the needs of the people. With few people at the top with all the money in the world and a lot of people at the bottom who simply struggled to feed themselves and their families and have adequate housing. And workers who would work very hard and work real long hours and be paid practically nothing and struggle just to pay their bills. Which is why he and his organization marched and worked with Memphis sanitation workers in Memphis so they could form their own labor union. Dr. King believed we needed a new economic system that would meet the needs of the people so we would no longer have hardworking people who struggled just to feed themselves and their families.

Dr. King wanted a democratic socialist model that would essentially collect the economic resources of the country through the Federal Government and then give those resources back through government programs based on what people needed to live well. Take from the wealthy though higher taxes to take care of the poor through government. Which is along with their large wealthy energy industry, is the economic model of Sweden. If you look at what Senator Bernie Sanders pushed for economically when he ran for President in 2016, its very similar to what Dr. King advocated for in the 1960s. High taxes on the wealthy to meet the needs of everyone else. This is not my economic model but this is what Martin King believed in and was proud of it and proud to be a Democratic Socialist, unlike a lot of closeted Socialists today who hide behind other political labels.

Dr. King was a proud man who didn’t hide from anyone and would promote his politics proudly regardless of what people on the Right and generally Far-Right in America people who even saw him as evil and wanted him killed and so what if those right-wingers saw him or labeled him as a Socialist or Communist. Because he wasn’t looking for their support anyway. Dr. King was a proud Socialist and would make the case for why he was a Socialist and then tell people who disagreed with them, “why aren’t you a Socialist as well now that you know what and why I stand for?” Which is very different from left-wingers today who are even proud to support Bernie Sanders and agree with him on everything and perhaps even to the left of Senator Sanders and perhaps even have more communist leanings instead of democratic socialist leanings and still feel the need to hide behind other political labels. And fail to claim the socialist label that fits their politics perfectly.
Source: Caleb Maupin: Martin Luther King Was a Socialist

Monday, January 29, 2018

National Constitution Center: NCC Staff- Alexander Hamilton's Vision of Federalism, National Authority & Judicial Review

Source: National Constitutional Center-
Source: National Constitution Center: NCC Staff- Alexander Hamilton's Vision of Federalism, National Authority & Judicial Review

There is very little if any mention and discussion about federalism in this video even though Alexander Hamilton's vision of federalism is part of the title of the video. But I'll give you the vision of federalism that our Founding Fathers ( our Founding Liberals ) gave us.

There was no such thing as America or the United States pre-Revolutionary War when the British colonies in what is now known as the United States of America broke way from the United Kingdom. The 13 original colonies came together to form this one new nation and created a Federal Republic. Which is sort of stating the obvious but important for this discussion. A big reason why the colonies or American colonies broke away from Britain was because they wanted more autonomy and more ability to govern themselves.

The United Kingdom was a unitarian superstate both in mainland Britain but in their colonies as well. With all of the governmental power being centralized in London and with the King back when the U.K. Monarchy ran Britain. Britain is still a unitarian state with most of the governmental power rested with the U.K. Government, but they do have cities now and municipal government's with at least some control over their own local governmental affairs. And now Northern Ireland and Scotland, have some control over what Americans call their state affairs. What other countries call their provincial affairs.

So when the Founding Fathers created the United States of America, they just didn't want a republic but a federal republic. Where Americans wouldn't just be free from Britain, but from dictatorial power from a supersize central government where most of the power would be rested with the national government. A governmental system that Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, all love and want to keep. While Social Democrats or Socialists in America, want to replace because it severely constrains what the national government can try to do for the people.

Federalism is a governmental system of how government works in America and in other countries, including Europe like in Germany where the national government is much larger than in America's when you talk about percentage of the economy that is taxed and by national government. In a federalist system you have a national government that is called the federal government. But you also have state and local government's.

And you don't just have these other government's within the country, but they have real governmental authority over their own governmental affairs. And have the power to govern themselves and do for themselves what they choose to do as long as they're within the U.S. Constitution. So they can run their own law enforcement and education department's, but they can't discriminate based on race or try to create their own currency or military, try to eliminate property rights, the right to privacy, the right to free speech. State and local laws, like federal laws, have to be within the U.S. Constitutional. With all laws from all levels subject to judicial review.

I'm what I call and perhaps others call a Liberal Federalist. I'm both a Liberal and a Federalist. Which might sound like an Oxymoron to people who view Liberals as the same thing as Socialists and Communists. But I'm a Liberal in the classical and real sense and if you're a real Liberal you're not a fan of big over centralization of power whether it's private power with how business's and private organizations are run, or with how government is run. Which is why federalism is a perfect governmental system for myself and other Liberals because we don't want one big government trying to run everything for everybody in a country this huge and diverse. And don't believe Washington even with all their brilliant people are capable for making decisions for Los Angeles, Denver, Milwaukee, or any other jurisdiction that the U.S. Government doesn't have direct control over.

Federalism is the only type of governmental system that can work in a liberal democratic constitutional republic like America, because again of our physical size and being so huge physically, but also having such a large diverse population as well. Culturally, racially, ethnically, and politically diverse a country that we are. You try to impose a socialist unitarian superstate in America, which is what they still have in Britain today even with their new municipal government's, and you would see states like California, Texas, the Northwest, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, the states in New England, and others break away and try to form their own countries. Being a Federalist doesn't mean you approve of every law that another jurisdiction or your own jurisdiction passes. But it means you believe they have the right and should have the right to pass those laws and govern themselves as long as those laws are constitutional.
Source: NCC: Alexander Hamilton's Vision- Federalism, National Authority & Judicial Review

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Kevin Schiele: A&E Biography- Serial Killer Gary Gilmore

Source: Kevin Schiele- Graphic photo of murder victims 
Source: Kevin Schiele: A&E Biography- Serial Killer Gary Gilmore

I'm not going to say that Gary Gilmore would have ended up as a terrific human being had he only had a father that loved him and raised him properly and didn't beat his kids including Gary Gilmore. Because we'll never know that. And I'm not going to say Gilmore's rough childhood should've spared him from his responsibilities in the murders that he was given. Even I do believe he should've been spared the death penalty which is a different issue. But Gary Gilmore unlike Ted Bundy or Jeff Dahmer, had good upbringings and parents who raised them well and who loved them. Gary didn't really have that at all growing up.

Gary Gilmore's father was basically a drunk bastard who wasn't around much other than to pay the bills and when he was around would beat the kids mother, as well as the kids and beat Gary as well. Gary's mother did love her kids including Gary, but wasn't able to raise her kids properly. Didn't have the skills and wasn't able to make the money needed to raise her kids well. Gary Gilmore similar to Charles Manson had a horrible upbringing and as a result became a very angry young man who got into a lot of trouble early in life. But the time Gilmore was executed in early 1977, he had already spent more than half of his time in life in prison.

Gary Gilmore  was not a man who was built and raised to succeed in society and live with freedom. He only had any success in life when he was in prison and had real structure and people making decisions for him and supervising him. This is not a man who was ever ready to be outside of prison and a man who if he were left in prison indefinitely in prison, would've been a very productive prison inmate. And would've gotten himself a good education and job, but while in prison.  Outside of prison Gary Gilmore was a shark outside of the ocean. A killer shark who would lose his temper easily and not be able to find a good job and end up stealing to support himself and murdering the people he would steal from. Which is what he did in 1976 that eventually got him the death penalty.

Gary Gilmore was never suited for life on the outside and to live in freedom. And should've never been paroled. He is the poster child for outlawing parole in America, even though I'm not in favor of that. But if you were to eliminate parole it would be for criminals like Gary Gilmore. People who when are in the outside anyone who crosses their path and does the smallest thing that can set that person off, literally put their life at risk. Gilmore is someone who should've been given an indefinite sentence in prison before he was released for the last time in his life. And he wouldn't have become a serial killer.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Forrest Palmer: George Wallace 1968 Presidential Campaign- Precursor To Donald Trump

Source: Forrest Palmer-
Source: Forrest Palmer: George Wallace 1968 Presidential Campaign- Precursor To Donald Trump

When I watched and listened to Donald Trump's 2016 GOP Convention nomination speech, I thought about George C. Wallace and his 1968 presidential campaign. The theme that it's other people's fault for why certain Americans mainly blue-collar Caucasian-Americans and men especially are struggling in America. Donald Trump's point was mostly about immigration and to a certain extent Islam's fault for why his Caucasian blue-collar male base was struggling.

In the 1960s there was this sense among Southern Caucasians especially English-Protestants and blue-collar workers in this community there and in even in rural parts of the Midwest, that they were losing their America. Because of multiculturalism, ethnic and racial minorities now staking their claim in America and not just defending their constitutional rights but using their to express themselves and be able to obtain their American dream without being denied their rights simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Governor George Wallace spoke to this community in Alabama in the 1960s and then later the broader South when he ran for President in 1968. Speaking out against integration and other issues.

George Wallace became the spokesperson for the segregationists and Neo-Confederates in Alabama and the broader South in the 1960s. The Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party that basically ran that party in Congress and the broader Democratic Party in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Wallace became the Strom Thurmond of the 1960s and became the candidate for blue-collar English-Protestants in America who believed their America was disappearing with all sorts not just non-European-Americans, but non-Anglo-Saxons becoming prominent in America. Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Irish-Catholics, Latinos, and other Americans. Along with African-Americans of course who gave us the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

I don't believe Donald Trump personally designed his presidential campaign around George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign. Just because The Donald is not even a student of history let alone an amateur historian. He seems to have no interest in history whatsoever. But George Wallace was still alive and functioning in 2016 and he would've been 97 at that point, I believe he would've been proud of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. And then say that he was the first to run a campaign like this and perhaps claim that Big Don learned from him. The two presidential campaigns are more than strikingly similar.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Eyes on Cinema: Michael Parkinson Show- John Wayne: On The Hollywood Blacklist, The American Way of Life & High Noon

Source: Eyes on Cinema-
Source: Eyes on Cinema: Michael Parkinson Show- John Wayne on The Hollywood Blacklist, The American Way of Life & High Noon

I sort of see John Wayne as the original 20th Century Tea Party leader and defender of what he and people who thought like him of American values and their American way of life. And that people who disagreed with them politically and culturally were somehow Un-American. Wouldn't surprise me at all if John Wayne was Phyllis Schlafly's and Michele Bachmann's, and many other Tea Party figures, was their favorite actor. John Wayne here defending the Hollywood Blacklist and saying that it was necessary at the time because he didn't want Far-Left and in many cases Communists and that way of thinking, involved in Hollywood and writing and producing movies.

The Hollywood Blacklist was right-wing and even Far-Right fascism being imposed on Socialists and Communists in Hollywood, simply because they were Socialists and Communists and had a fringe political point of view on the Far-Left. If you're  someone who actually believes in free speech and just doesn't say that, then you don't have a problem with having people, beliefs, and values in the country that you disagree with. If you're a fascist whether you're on the Right or on the Left, the only speech that you believe is worthy to be heard or read and considered, is speech that comes from your side. So John Wayne who is supposed to be this champion of conservative values in Hollywood and one of those values is free speech, saying that some Americans don't have a right to be heard and even work, simply because they have beliefs that John Wayne views as Un-American.

I'm a Liberal, so of course I believe in free speech like all real Liberals do. Which means I believe in America because we're a liberal democracy where all people and all political beliefs have a constitutional First Amendment right to be heard. Whether it's Tea Party Nationalists on the Right, who believe left-wingers should be silenced because they see those views as Un-American. Or Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left, who believe right-wingers should be silenced because they see their views as bigoted and just promoting what they see as the materialistic racist American empire as they would see it. What John Wayne is telling Michael Parkinson in this 1974 interview coming from the Right or even Far-Right, is that Far-Leftists back in the 1940s and 1950s, didn't have a right to speak or work in Hollywood, because he saw their views as Un-American. Which is dangerous fascist thinking.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Libertarianism.Org: Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna- The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

Source: Libertarianism.Org-
Source: Libertarianism.Org: Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna- The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

With this piece I'm going to separate liberalism where I am on the Center-Left of the American political spectrum, from not just Marxism/Communism, but what's called classical liberalism or what and most other people at least today call libertarianism.

Liberalism or liberal democracy, is about individual rights, equal rights, civil rights, equal justice, equal opportunity and yes limited government. Liberals aren't anti-government which is what a lot of modern Libertarians seem to be today. Liberals just don't want big government running people's lives for them and replace individualism with a big central government. And even using big government to try to tell people what they should think and how they can talk with other people. What language is acceptable and so-forth.

Liberalism is the ultimate color, race, ethnic, and gender-blind society. Because it believes in individualism and people should be treated exactly as that as individuals. And don't believe people should be rewarded or punished based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Unlike Socialists even Democratic Socialists and Communists today, who believe minorities should be rewarded over majorities, because of their race and ethnicity and they would simply argue because European-Americans especially men were rewarded because of their race, ethnicity, and gender in the past. And it's time for racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds should be reward based on those factors today.

Whether you want to call them Marxists, Socialists, or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists, Socialists today have very different views from Liberals and don't think liberalism and liberal democracy goes far enough in seeing that the needs of the society and public are met. And don't trust individualism and freedom, opportunity, and even education for the masses, enough to see that everyone's needs are met. And believe you need a big centralized government and perhaps just one government for the entire society, to be used to meet the needs of that masses. And believe that individual freedom and individualism, even the ability for people to think and speak for themselves, as dangerous. Because they see it as the freedom to make mistakes that society will have to pay for. And for the rich will just richer and everyone else will be left behind.

When you're talking about liberalism versus socialism and communism, you're talking about individualism versus collectivism and even statism. Liberals trust educated individuals to be able to self-govern themselves and meet their own needs and be able to take care of themselves. With a limited government to regulate how people interact with each other, but not how we govern ourselves. Socialists and Communists, put their faith in government especially the central state, to see that needs of the masses are taken care and no one is left behind and has to go without. When you're comparing liberalism with socialism, you're talking about individualism and freedom, versus statism.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Dandelion Salad: Happy New Year! 'The Radical MLK'

Source: Dandelion Salad-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

After the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed and then the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, the 1968 Fair Housing Law, the Martin L. King movement started moving into a more radical direction. Even for the 1960s and even for today as well where Socialists and socialism doesn’t get looked down upon as much and Socialists aren’t necessarily seen as bad people with socialism being seen as some evil ideally anymore. Socialists and socialism are still seen as radicals and part of a radical movement today, but back in the 1960s they Socialists from all factions of socialism and socialism, was seen as Un-American by enlarge in America.

By the time 1967 comes alone Dr. King was a down the line anti-war and violence all together pacifist Democratic Socialist. Even to the left of Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders today who isn’t a pacifist and have supported American military action plenty of times during his career in Congress. Dr. King was as Far-Left and idealistic as Dr. Jill Stein ( the Green Party Leader ) today. He wanted a Federal Government big enough and to tax enough to meet the means of the American people. Which was mainstream socialist thinking back then and certainly today as well.

Which is why I see Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his era. Someone who his not just a Socialist, not just a proud Socialist, but a proud self-described Socialist in the democratic sense. Unlike a lot of Socialists in America today who love the politics of socialism without living with the label of Socialist. And prefer to be called Progressive or even Liberal instead. When the fact is they’re Socialists and in many cases illiberal when it comes to free speech, property rights, and not seeming to put any limits on what government should try to do for the people.

After the civil rights laws are passed in the mid and late 1960s, Dr. King and his movement moves past civil rights and into welfare rights. And he gives a lot of speeches against the Vietnam War and instead calling for those resources to meet the needs of the American people, poor people especially. The radical Socialist Dr. King comes out for America to see in an era where young Americans especially were speaking out against the establishment and even the American form of government and were looking for a more radical way to govern America and a more radical political system for the country.
Source: Daniel Troutman: The Radical MLK You Probably Haven't Heard

Monday, January 22, 2018

Marilyn Monroe The Ultimate Collection: Marilyn Monroe and The Making of The Misfits

Source: Echoes of The Past-
Just a personal note first. 

Have you ever seen a gorgeous woman or any woman in general, look better in Levi's and boots, than Marilyn Monroe? If you look at The Misfits movie you have about 40-45 minutes of Marilyn in dark wash Levi's denim jeans were she's either wearing a tank top of white blouse and about 10-15 minutes or so of Marilyn with a blue Levi's denim jacket as well. And keep in mind, this movie was made in 1960 wear women weren't wearing tight jeans including Levi's on a regular basis at least on TV or in the movies. And you have this gorgeous baby-faced adorable blonde with a beautiful body in these dark wash Levi's and boots. 
Source: Google

Women were barley wearing pants at all on TV and in the movies back then and if they were wearing pants at all, generally they were business pants. Tight jeans and boots for women especially that combo, didn't become common and mainstream for American women until the late 1970s with the designer jeans revolution. Marilyn was sort of like Catherine Bach ( who played Daisy Duke on The Dukes of Hazzard ) in The Misfits as far as style and looked gorgeous and sexy during the entire movie. 

As far as the movie itself it wasn't a great movie. It was entertaining and at times pretty funny. But Elie Wallach who was one of the best actors at least of his generation and in this movies is right about the word misfits. The four main characters in the movie including Marilyn, but also with Burt Lancaster, Eli Wallach, Thelma Ritter, and Montgomery Clift, were basically all drifters who went from place to place and got involved in this or that. Gary Langland, ( played by Burt Lancaster ) Guido, ( played by Eli Wallach ) and Pierce Howland, ( played by Montgomery Clift ) were all Nevada cowboys but they were part-time cowboys at this point. 

Roslyn Taber ( played by Marilyn Monroe ) and Isabelle Steers ( played by Thelma Ritter ) were even  bigger drifters than the cowboys. Roselyn was just recently divorced and not knowing where she was going from there and how where her life was going. Isabelle was Roselyn's friend but perhaps even more of a drifter than Roselyn and just being with her friend to help her out and try to start over. They end up in Reno, Nevada and stop at a bar which is where they meet Gary and Guido and start to get to know each other. And they tell the two woman that they're cowboys which is where Roselyn gets interested and find out that Roselyn has nowhere to stay and Gary brings her back to his cabin. 

The Roselyn character is so sweet, adorable, and innocent in the movie. Idealistic and naive and overly idealistic as well. Expecting people to better than they actually are. Marilyn was literally the kid in the movie both figuratively and literally. With the other four main characters all having real world experience and knowing people for who they are. The seen when they start to go rodeoing is a perfect example of that. Roselyn thinks that the guys there are just there to catch horses and then let them go for sport. When the fact is they're doing it for money and are going to sell the horses to people that are going to kill the horses and use them for meet to sell on the market. The only person in the group who is not aware of this going in. Like a kid. 

This is not Marilyn Monroe's worst movie and certainly not her best movie. I believe she physically looks her best in this movie along with The River of No Return where she plays a woman with a lot more experience and sense for the real world. In The Misfits I believe she comes off as 15-16 year old little girl and not just because she was adorable enough enough to pass for a girl that young physically. But her character's personality in this movie is very immature and inexperienced. Good movie if you love gorgeous sexy women in jeans and boots and love cowgirls. But the movie itself leaves plenty to be desired. 
Source: Marilyn Monroe The Ultimate Collection: Marilyn Monroe and The Making of The Misfits

Saturday, January 20, 2018

PBS: American Masters- None Without Sin: The Story of Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan

Source: PBS- Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan-
Source: PBS: American Masters- None Without Sin

Elia Kazan was looked down upon ( and I'm being nice ) because he was former Communist and member of Communist Party USA, who testified in 1952 in front of the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee, for outing other Communists and Socialists who worked in Hollywood. And because of this Kazan was able to continue his brilliant Hollywood career as a direct or, producer, and writer. And as a result his colleagues in Hollywood refused to honor his great works because the Socialist-Left in Hollywood saw him as a traitor. Even though no one will even attempt to argue that Elia Kazan wasn't a great writer, director, and producer.

So Elia Kazan had two feet kicking him in the rear during is career. One foot because the corporate establishment kicking him simply for being a Communist and kicking him simply because of his personal politics and beliefs. The other foot the Socialist-Left. Actors, directors, producers, writers, the employees in Hollywood, kicking Kazan because he came out as a Communist, which is like admitting to being a rapist or murderer, to the Fascist-Right in America.

We have a guaranteed right to free speech in America which of course covers politics but other aspects of what we think and what we have to say, with only a few exceptions dealing with libel, inciting violence, and harassment. ( Not offensive speech ) So unless you're working for foreign government to try to hurt the United States, or involved in terrorist activities to advance your politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. Even if it offends tight asses on the Far-Right who have their own limited view of what it means to be an American. Or tight asses on the Far-Left who believe anything that is critical about anyone who is not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant straight male, should be censored.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan. There's nothing dangerous about one's political beliefs and thoughts. People have a right to believe what they believe. America is so strong as a liberal democracy that we tolerate people who believe America is some racist evil empire. Which is what Communists and perhaps Democratic Socialists even, tend to believe. And we can tolerate people who believe non-European-Americans and even non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants, are basically animals not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the English-Protestants who came to America in the 16 and 1700s. Doesn't mean fringe thinking in America shouldn't be looked down upon and people who act on those fringe beliefs though violence shouldn't be monitored and punished. But Americans shouldn't be denied access in America and be blacklisted simply because of their personal politics.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Governor Wallace: Alabama Governor George Wallace- On Meet The Press: June 30th, 1968

Source: Governor Wallace-
Source: Governor Wallace: Alabama Governor George Wallace- On Meet The Press: June 30th, 1968

Was Governor George Wallace a racist? Well, the same question can unfortunately be asked about our President of the United States Donald Trump. Or was George Wallace an racial opportunist and demagogue? Someone who used racial issues in Alabama to gain popularity with the actual racists there and members of the KKK and other racist European-American especially Anglo-Saxon groups in Alabama and in South in general.

The actual definition of a racist is, "a person who shows or feels discrimination against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race it superior to another." ( According to Wikipedia ) You could expand that to people who simply dislike or even hate, show violence to someone of another race, or other races simply because that person or people are from another race. I don't believe we know that George Wallace believed that European-Americans were superior to African-Americans and other racial groups in America. We also don't know that George Wallace hated of races of people.

George Wallace wasn't a career politician, he was an addicted politician. Someone who could only be happy if they held a public office and dealt with public policy on a daily basis as an elected official. He was also power hungry and was always seeking the most power for himself politically that he could politically could. Which is why he ran for President of the United States four times. He was also from Alabama which obviously had a lot of racists in his state and knew for him to be successful politically it was going to have to be in Alabama. Which leads into me believing that George Wallace was a racial demagogue and opportunist.

Governor Wallace was a man who used racial divisions and the hatred of racists in Alabama towards African-Americans as a way to further his own political career. I don't think we know if Governor Wallace was an actual segregationist in the sense he believed the Caucasians and African-Americans, should be forced to live separately. What we do know is Alabama back then at least was a deeply poor underdeveloped, undereducated, ignorant state even and that Governor Wallace wasn't going to be popular in Alabama because people there loved the economy so much and felt so great about their own lives. But Wallace knew that if he could communicate with the racists there that he was with them and that it was them against African-Americans and the Federal Government, he could get elected on that alone and be popular there.

George Wallace was a very complicated man who similar to Richard Nixon had a lot of flaws and even some pluses. Not as many pluses as Richard Nixon and Wallace was also an intelligent man especially politically and a good lawyer. To simply flat-out  call George Wallace a racist because he spoke in favor of segregation I believe is too simple. To call him a demagogue who used racial issues to scare people and who over blew them to gain political popularity I believe would be accurate. I believe George Wallace was a bad guy and a bad politician in the sense that he had a hard time telling the truth and even lied a lot to gain political popularity. But I think labeling him a racist would be going too far.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- On Meeting Senator Joseph McCarthy

Source: Foundation Interviews-
Source: Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- On Meeting Senator Joseph McCarthy

That must have been a meeting where you would want to have a camera and video rolling so you always have that memory with you and can always remember it accurately and share with everyone else. Actress Betty Garret, an actual Communist and a one-time member of the Communist Party USA in the 1940s and 1950s. Senator Joseph McCarthy, a right-wing demagogue what we would call today and perhaps back then a Nationalist as well as tribalist, fascist even. Who believed he and people who thought like him were the only true Americans and people who dissented from him like Communists, Socialists, and Liberals, were Un-American. And should be in jail or at least not allowed to speak out and express themselves politically and otherwise.

How would a meeting like that go? A Communist meeting a right-wing Nationalist-tribalist. The 1950s version of Governor George Wallace, or Donald Trump today. What would a Communist who is as Far-Left as you can get politically and believes all aspects of private ownership should be illegal and would work to eliminate all aspects of individualism including, freedom of religion in society ( if Betty Garrett was truly a hardcore Communist ) say to a Nationalist-fascist who believes people shouldn't even be allowed to believe in communism, let alone practice those politics and be a political activist. It must have been like President Richard Nixon going to China in 1971 or President Ronald Reagan negotiating with Russia over nuclear weapons reduction in the mid and late 1980s.

Betty Garrett I believe was right about Joe McCarthy at least in this aspect. That McCarthy didn't have any sense of morality in the sense that he had a mission and to hell with who he hurts along the way to try to accomplish that mission. Apparently including himself since a Republican Senate censored him over his activities during his tenure as Chairman of the Investigations Committee in 1953-54. McCarthy was full speed ahead to try to accomplish his mission which was to eliminate all Communists and perhaps Socialists in general from the U.S. Government and use that as a launching pad to run for President probably in 1960. We've had plenty of bad people who have served in Congress including racists and KKK members, but Joe McCarthy was certainly one of the worsts we've ever had.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- What is Communism?

Source: Learn Liberty-
Source: Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- What is Communism?

I believe Professor Howard Baetjer gave an accurate definition of communism as short and simple as it was. That communism is the common ownership of the means of production of society. But that can be interpreted in two ways.

One, that government owns the means of production of society. Which is generally how communism has been practiced. Look at North Korea today, look at Cuba up until ten years or so ago. Look at China up until about forty years ago. Look at the Soviet Union of Russia before they broke up. Look at the Eastern European Russian satellites during the Cold War.

Another way to look at common ownership of the means of production of society would be that the individuals themselves would own these things. The workers would own a piece of the company that they work for and you see that in what are called economic cooperatives where each worker literally owns a stake in the company that they work for. There are some economic cooperates ( or co-ops ) in America but this is not a common economic system in America or really anywhere else in the world.

But similar with democratic socialism ( the democratic wing of socialism ) communism is not just an economic idea or philosophy. And if you want to know what communism is and what Communists believe you have to look at Communists themselves and what they believe and look at communists government's in countries where communism is the governing philosophy.

My definition of communism is a belief that the state ( meaning the central government ) should be in charge of society and therefore run society on behalf of the people. That the only way society can be strong is if everyone is strong. Meaning that no one should and would have too much while others live without enough and of course no one should go without enough. That individual freedom and individualism, as well as private enterprise, are looked down upon. That people shouldn't be allowed to own things and create for themselves and instead everything should be shared for the common good of society. That the state should be in charge of everything and that there is no private ownership on behalf of the people to serve the people. And that there is no private dissent and competition that the state should have to deal with. No political opposition and private media.

There really aren't any countries left in the world other than North Korea that is purely a communist state. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba now has private enterprise in it. While the state still clamps down on personal freedom and political opposition. The same can be said about the People's Republic of China. Russia is still around but the Soviet Union is now gone. All the former Russian European satellites are now essentially democratic republics with private enterprise economies. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam now has private enterprise in their economy. And this is simply that communism doesn't work as an economic system and these countries were tired of trying to fund their centralized regimes with so many poor people in their countries and not producing enough revenue for their regimes.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

National Constitution Center: NCC Staff- How Dr. Martin L. King Cited The Constitution in His Mountaintop Speech

Source: National Constitution Center-
Source: National Constitution Center: NCC Staff- How Dr. Martin L. King Jr. Cited The Constitution in His Mountaintop Speech

Dr. King used the Constitution to make his case for the civil rights movement all the time and did it in a very intelligent and accurate way. Saying that African-Americans had the exact same constitution rights as every other American including European-Americans and even English-Protestants simply because they were Americans. That the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution does exactly that. It protects all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity equally. It doesn't say that some Americans are more valuable and worthy than others simply because of their race or ethnicity.

With Southern Anglo-Saxon states in America who were govern by Neo-Confederates who decided that they since they lost the Civil War that what they would do now is simply deny African-Americans their constitutional rights and argue they can do that under some bogus ( to be nice ) argument that under the 10th Amendment and what they call states rights that they states can essentially do whatever they want. The problem with that argument is that the Constitution supersede's states rights. The states have to be inline with the Constitution just as much as the Federal Government has to be.

Another part of the Constitution that Dr. King consistently cited in his argument for the civil rights movement is the First Amendment. The guaranteed right for all Americans to free speech and free assembly in America. The right for all Americans to peacefully assemble together and express their free speech rights and speak out against injustices and anything else that they want to speak out against. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and other states back in the 1960s, obviously had another interpretation of the First Amendment. And simply saw African-Americans as not much more than criminals and terrorists and in some cases still as animals like in the era of slavery and believed they could breakup these protests and deny these Americans their First Amendment rights.

The civil rights movement even if it was considered radical back in the 1960s before racial and ethnic minorities became prevalent in America and before minorities had large numbers and before racism was considered to be evil by in large in the Caucasian community, the civil rights movement was about as mainstream as any political movement we've ever seen in America. Because it was about the U.S. Constitution and enforcing it for all Americans. Which under the Constitution itself it's supposed to be enforced equally for all Americans anyway. And I believe Dr. King always understood that.
Source: News Politics Info: Dr. Martin L. King's Last Speech- "I've Been To The Mountaintop"



Monday, January 15, 2018

Talking Union: Celebrating The Life and Work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Source: UNAC/UCHP-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Every time I hear our President Donald Trump speak and give one of his shithole comments or says something else that is disgusting about an entire group of Americans and people, I think about the worst and most ignorant of Americans. Bigots and racists from all races and ethnicities in America.

America, which could be called the world instead because America represents the entire world as far as everyone now lives hear and represents the best of America which is our diversity and individualism. The ability for all Americans to be exactly who they are and make the best life for them that they possibly can. Our diversity and individualism represents the best of America, while Donald Trump and his backers including Neo-Nazis and other European-American hate groups, representing the worst of America.

Dr. Martin Luther King represents the best of America. A Silent Generation baby born in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression. Which for an African-American born in them and born in the deep South in Georgia, would be worst than a depression, compared with European-American babies and even English-Protestant-American babies born during the same time and period. Born not to poverty but certainly modest means and having to fight racism his whole life but certainly growing up and coming through all of that working his way through college and becoming one of the best Reverends and religious leaders, as well as civil rights leaders that America has ever seen.

Dr. King represents the best of America because he proves that every American regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or who they were born to and the economic status of their parents, can make it in America if they want to make it in America and do the work to make it in America. Live a responsible life, get themselves a good education, and then apply those skills in the workforce. That it’s not about how people were born or who they were born to, that determines what kind of life you’ll have in America, but what you do with your life after you’re born that determines if you make it in America.

Dr. King’s life and vision for America with his I Have a Dream speech, represents America at it’s best. I mean think about this for a minute . “I have a dream where my children will one day be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.” That is what America is about and should be about. That every American regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, can make it in America is they simply apply themselves and get the skills that they need to make it in America. So when you hear Donald Trump or some other shithole, make a shithole comment, treat that comment or comments for what they are, but also remember there is another vision for America that is more accurate about what America really is and represents America at it’s best.
Source: Above Inspiration: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.- Be The Best of Whatever You Are

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- Discusses The Hollywood Blacklist

Source: Foundation Interviews-
Source: Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- Discusses The Hollywood Blacklist

Betty Garrett saying in this interview that workers in Hollywood we're interested in the Communist Party (Communist Party USA) and not just interested but politically active, because the Communist Party back then were talking about issues like affordable housing, health care, civil and equal rights, what would be called progressive causes and that they were a progressive organization. Hearing the words communist and progressive, to describe Communists, is ironic at best.

I don't doubt that Communists believe in adorable housing and that government has a big role in seeing that is available for everyone. Or that they believe in affordable health care and health insurance. Or that they believe in equal rights for everyone in the country. Keep in mind, the civil rights movement was just a baby back in the mid and late 1940s when the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigations were going on in Congress with the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee. Perhaps not even a baby and not even born yet. Equal rights for all Americans and seeing that Non-European Americans had the same civil rights and constitution rights as English-Protestants in America, was not a mainstream issue. After all, Communists are Socialists when it comes to economic policy and today even there's still a lot of Marxism in the communist movement in America.

But, if Communists were to ever come to power in America (and it started snowing in Hell on the same day) most if not all of our civil liberties and constitutional rights would disappear. Most rights in America are individual rights. Free speech, the right to not be discriminated against under law based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion. The right to privacy, our property rights, equal justice under law. The right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.

Communists don't believe in individual rights and individualism in general. They believe everyone in society should be subjects of the state and that it's the job of the central state to see that everyone is taken care of and that the central government has to have not just broad but unlimited powers to see that everyone is taken care of in society, but to keep the regime protected and in power indefinitely. The Communists do have socialist leanings and policies when it comes to welfare rights and the general welfare, but it is a very regressive philosophy by in large especially when it comes to civil liberties and individualism.

As far as the Hollywood Ten and the Communists in Hollywood investigations. Americans (even in Hollywood) have the same free speech rights as Americans who believe in individual freedom and limited government. Or Americans who believe Christian Theocracy and ethno and racial nationalism. Or Democratic Socialists, or actual Progressives, or people who don't believe in any form of government at all.

Americans have a guaranteed right to free speech in America because we are a constitutional liberal democracy with guaranteed individual rights under our Constitution. And therefor have the right to believe what they believe and speak out on what they believe and work for people who share their political beliefs. And shouldn't be punished simply because of their politics. Which is what happened in Hollywood to the Hollywood ten and with by their own Federal Government by being persecuted by Congress because of their political beliefs.

Friday, January 12, 2018

David Hoffman: Governor George Wallace- Defends Segregation on TV in 1968

Source: David Hoffman- Governor George C. Wallace, D, Alabama 
Source: David Hoffman: Governor George Wallace- Defends Segregation on TV in 1968

The video is not about segregation but poverty in Alabama instead. Why David Hoffman who put the video together called titled the video about segregation instead, you would have to ask him.

The man who questions Governor George Wallace in this video asked his about poverty including starvation in Alabama, with Governor Wallace essentially saying, "what about New Jersey and states up North that also have poverty in them? How come you aren't asking about them." Trying to change the subject and do a what about. "Things might be horrible here, but what about these other places where things are bad?"

Alabama is different today and no longer a big state geographically with poverty everywhere. Alabama has become a lot more urban and more educated. While still dealing with high levels of rural and even urban poverty, but back in the 1960s and before that Alabama was a big West Virginia or Arkansas. Deeply rural and undeveloped with a lot of ignorant people at least in the sense of people who simply didn't finish school and perhaps never even made it to high school. A lot of that having to do with their families needing them to work early so they could have food and a place to live.

Governor Wallace who had already served two terms as Governor of Alabama by the time 1968 came around, obviously knew all of this. But instead tried to distract and deny the obvious about high levels of poverty in Alabama.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

BCP Theater: Featuring Marsha Mason & The Cast of Chapter Two!

Source: BCP Theater- Marsha Mason, being interviewed at The BCP Theater 
Source: BCP Theater: Featuring Marsha Mason & The Cast of Chapter Two!

Not saying Chapter Two is one of my favorite movies, at least not yet. Maybe after I've seen it another 10-20 times which will probably happen, then maybe it will become one of my favorite movies. Chapter Two is certainly one of my favorite Marsha Mason movies as well as James Caan. And is certainly one of my favorite dramatic comedies. And this is exactly what it is. A movie with a lot of humor, with very funny people and not the just the two main players, but Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper as well. But also a  movie with serious drama with a man dealing with serious issues about not getting over the death of his first wife and not ready to move on from her, but not realizing that until he remarries a beautiful woman that he truly loves.

Dramatic comedy to me at least and speaking as a fan of Alfred Hitchcock who I at least believe is the master of both dramatic comedy but suspense comedy, is comedy about serious issues. If you look at the great sitcom M*A*S*H you see exactly what dramatic comedy is. People who find themselves in crazy but serious situations but then find a way to make fun of that as a way to let out how they feel about their situation, as well as a way to maintain their sanity. If you watch the movie Chapter Two, the first hour or so of the movie is all comedy and sarcasm about romance and romantic relationships that the four main characters have been involved in life. With the characters being very open and honest about their struggles and successes with their relationships.

The Joe Bologna character Leo essentially saying that he loves his wife, but he loves women more and can't be satisfied with just one woman. He loves being married, but he can't handle being settled down with just one woman. The George Schneider character (played by James Caan) not ready to move on from his first wife who is dead, but is pressured by his brother Leo to start dating again. Talking about his last few dates and how awful and flawed the women that he went out with were. And being very funny about those dates and the women he went out with.

The whole way that Jennie (played by Marsha Mason) and George get together is funny. Neither one sure they want to go out with the other, but are intrigued attracted enough with the other that they don't want to let the opportunity go and share a few funny and charming phone calls together before they finally set up a pre-date with each other. And spend 5-10 minutes together starting to get to know each other before deciding that they want to go out on a real date.

And then the drama, well depression really as far as George sets in and he goes into this deep mental shell. After it sets in that he's married again to a different woman  a beautiful adorable charming witty woman in Jennie and now has officially moved on from his dead wife and starts taking out his frustrations on his new wife. And the rest of the movie becomes about whether George and Jennie will stay together. Will George break out of his shell and bring his new beautiful wife into his life.

Chapter Two is a great movie for people who are fans of both drama and comedy, because you get the best of both worlds. very dramatic serious scenes involving very serious and honest people, who have a great way of expressing those feeling with very quick and smart humor. This is not a softball comedy about very ordinary or less than ordinary people who find themselves way in over their heads and as a result commit all sorts of screw ups. Or a heavy-hitting drama that can leave people crying half way into the movie because of how dramatic and depressing the movie is. But instead a movie about good honest people who find themselves going though rough times, but use smart humor as a way to express how they feel and get though those situations in life.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Tom Woods: Christopher Snowden- Killjoys: A Critique of The Nanny State

Source: Tom Woods- Radio talk show host Tom Woods
Source: Tom Woods: Christopher Snowden- Killjoys: A Critique of The Nanny State

There isn't really one form of a nanny state or one ideology that backs a nanny state. The nanny state comes from both the Left (and not Center-Left) and the Right. (And not Center-Right) People on the Far-Left who at the very least have communist leanings and see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and people who don't share their politics as stupid. And view people in general who at least don't share their cultural values and politics, as stupid. And people on the Far-Right who see certain forms of personal behavior as immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values to the point that they believe those certain activities should be outlawed. And are also people who believe individualism and personal autonomy at least as it relates to personal behavior are dangerous.

I don't believe any intelligent American on the Left or Right is going to argue that there not only stupid people in America, but a lot of stupid people. People who make such bad decisions that it does affect the lives of others. Drunk driving, would be an example, obesity that drives up the health care costs of other Americans especially because of emergency care that people who eat and drink poorly and don't exercise, end up consuming a lot of emergency care because they can't afford to financially pay for the costs of their consequences from their own bad behavior. And therefor end up passing those expensive health care costs onto healthy Americans.

The question should always be what should be done about it. Do you really want to penalize and even make criminals out of people who only hurt themselves at least in the short-term. Or do you want to hold them personally and financially accountable for their own poor decision-making and not allow for them to pass their health care costs onto healthier intelligent Americans. And I'm not talking about denying people health care simply because they made bad decisions with their own diets. But instead having them pay for those costs either upfront through taxation, or through higher health insurance premiums.

The nanny state coming from the Christian-Right primarily in America, is not about stupid personal behavior at all. But really about certain activities that Christian-Conservatives find immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values. Whether its gambling, pornography, adultery, adult language, adult music, adult movies, homosexuality, women working out of the home, etc. And unfortunately there are many more examples, but I've given you several. But activities that the Christian-Right would outlaw in America and would put people in jail for doing them if they were ever to come to power, simply because these activities offend their religious and cultural values.

Again, its not a question of whether there are stupid people in America and a lot of Americans who do things that are simply not in their personal interest. As well as activities that don't even come with much of a level of danger, but for whatever reasons aren't for everybody which is why not everybody does those things. The questions are who gets to make the decisions when it comes to their own personal lives and who has to deal with the consequences of their own personal decisions. And as a Liberal because I believe in liberty I come down on the side of the individual. As someone who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility. Not someone who not only believes in big government, but government big enough to protect people from themselves.


Tuesday, January 9, 2018

The New York Times: Opinion- Thomas J. Knock: George McGovern, Vietnam & The Democratic Crackup

Source: The New York Times-
Source: The New York Times: Opinion- Thomas J. Knock: George McGovern, Vietnam & The Democratic Crackup

There was a Democratic Party crackup in the 1960s and the debate is really when it happened. Pre-JFK assassination (which should be a clue for you) the Democratic Party was made up of Progressive cold warrior anti-Communists and Dixiecrats who today would be not just right-wing Republicans, but Far-Right-wing Republicans. But what the Democratic Party had in common was that they were anti-Communists. President John Kennedy is assassinated in 1963 and there was a leadership void and leadership that kept the Democratic Party together ideologically and politically.

Plus, you have the Baby Boom Generation starting to come of age in the early and mid 1960s who weren't anti-Communists at least when they were young and didn't see communism as some threat to their way of life. Who were anti-war pacifists at least when it came to the American military, who hated America's involvement in the Vietnam War and wanted to create a new America by any means necessary. That was less individualist, less capitalist, and less military.

The New-Left emerges as this movement that was a socialist movement made of both Democratic Socialists and even Communists. Groups like Students For a Democratic Society, The Weather Underground, and other New-Left socialist groups in America. This is the movement that broke the Democratic Party in half in 1968 and a reason why Hubert Humphrey loss the presidential election to Richard Nixon in 1968 and backed George McGovern for President in 1972.

If you look at George McGovern 1972 presidential campaign, he was the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his era. Someone who believed America was too decentralized when it came to its form of government. Who wanted to create a Scandinavian welfare state for America with the Federal Government being responsible for lot of the basic human services that we consume in life. Who was anti-wealth and believed that Americans were generally undertaxed. But McGovern pre-1968 or so was lot more mainstream with his politics. A World War II veteran who served honorably as a fighter pilot. Born and raised in North Dakota, who was very religious. George McGovern was never a New York City or San Francisco radical Socialist, who was anti-American and saw America as the real evil empire in the world. Even in 1972 he didn't believe that.

But on economic policy George McGovern was the Bernie Sanders of his era and Bernie Sanders was the George McGovern of his era. Not people who believed American capitalism was evil and should be destroyed and replaced with some type of Marxist economic system. But was someone who believed that American capitalism should be used to finance a very generous welfare state and go together as part of a new American economic system. A large private sector and private enterprise system, to go along with a generous welfare state financed through high taxes on everyone. On economic policy at least George and Bernie, were always way to the left of most Americans on economic policy, even if they would be considered mainstream Center-Left Social Democrats in Europe.
Source: AP Archive: Senator George McGovern Speaks on Vietnam- 10/28/1972

Monday, January 8, 2018

Marilyn Monroe Family: The Death of Marilyn Monroe

Source: Marilyn Monroe Family-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Marilyn Monroe is now such a pop culture icon and hero to so many fans of pop culture and hipsters in America, that they simply can’t handle the fact that a woman like this who is so popular and is now such a fashion icon, could actually kill herself and did kill herself. Whether it was accidentally, which has always been my argument since I’ve been following this case closely for three years now, or intentionally which I don’t believe happened.

The followers of John F. Kennedy who can’t believe that a career loser like Lee Harvey Oswald, could actually put together the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, have the same love and devotion to JFK, as the followers and admirers of Marilyn Monroe. One side believing that a loser couldn’t kill their hero. The other side believing that their hero couldn’t had possibly kill herself. This is my more positive approach and take about the conspiracy theorists regarding the death of Marilyn Monroe.

My my more realistic and cynical view about the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the death of Marilyn Monroe, has to do with people who view this as a money making opportunity for them, a business investment. Knowing that there is small but large enough faction of Americans who are willing to believe that the official position on the death of Marilyn having to do with being suicide and accidental overdose, couldn’t possibly had happen because Marilyn was such an icon and goddess that she couldn’t have possibly had kill herself and that people will be more than willing to buy books, documentaries, view documentaries on TV about conspiracy theories involving how Marilyn died that night. Ranging from President Kennedy ordering the murder of Marilyn, to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy the President’s brother committing the murder himself.

Anybody can have a conspiracy theory. But if you want to have that theory be taken seriously by people who aren’t already there with you and ready to believe you, who don’t come off as people who just got out of a mental institution, perhaps escaped from one, or act as if they might need to be in one and are headed to one, you need real evidence. You need evidence that puts someone in the room at or about the time that Marilyn died. And you need a cause of death and show that someone else other than Marilyn is responsible for her death. And the people who believe or claim to believe that someone other than Marilyn Monroe herself is responsible for her own death, have never offered any evidence that someone other than Marilyn killed herself on that summer might in 1962.
Source: All Time Conspiracies: The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe