Rob Logan: George Carlin- On Soft Langauge

Source:Rob Logan- Part of George Carlin's 1990 Doin it Again 

"One of my favorite George Carlin bits in which he describes the sterilization of the American language. From the 1990 special Doin' it Again."

Source:Rob Logan

This is one thing that I agree with George Carlin, except for the racial component of it: all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, color, etc, engage in this overly-flattering language, but his basic premise is definitely correct.

This also gives a couple of  questions: who do these people who believe that other people need to be protected from hearing the cold, hard truth about themselves actually believe that they're protecting? Aren't they aware that trying to protect people from hearing the actual negative truth about themselves, is a form of bigotry? I'm not a fan of President George W. Bush and rare if ever do I ever quote him, but what Carlin calls soft language is actually is part of the soft bigotry of low expectations: that you have to lower your standards so some Americans can actually succeed. And in this case you have to hide the truth to protect other people's feelings.

The only way that people can ever approve at anything especially the people who have  real weaknesses and issues, is to first know what the hell is wrong with them and where they're coming up short: except perhaps for short people, or am I supposed to say little people, because somehow short people is now offensive. If you don't know what your weaknesses are, how you supposed to correct them?

You take your car into the shop for repairs and you think the problem with the car is a low battery, when really the engine is rusting out and you tell your mechanic it's the battery and don't bother to look at anything else: sure, your battery might be fixed, but what about the rusted engine? And besides, if your mechanic is a professional, they'll probably look at your entire car anyway to see why the car isn't running properly anyway and then go about fixing the car or at least telling you what's wrong with your car: "Mr. Wilson, actually there's a big problem with your engine and we need to fix it before your car can run properly again. And we can fix your battery as well." You have to first know the truth about yourself, before you can fix what's wrong with you.

Explain to me how calling an obese person physically challenged or size deficient, help that person deal with their obesity and being fat: it sure as hell won't help them lose any weight, especially if they have some phobia about being obese and feel the need for people to be nice about their obesity. In a situation like that the obese person would probably be better off with someone who actually cares about them and their health getting in their face and telling them: "you're eating yourself to death, you pig!" Or even using some humor and saying: "their poor people who are starving right now, because you're taking too much food. You're not the only person on this planet who gets hungry: you just eat the most food."

And I'm not talking about using humor and being critical to put someone down, but to be constructive by showing the person their flaws and the consequences of them and them giving them an avenue they can take to improve. Insulting people to just get laughs, is not even funny unless you're an asshole who gets kicks out of people being put down. But using humor in a constructive way to show someone their flaws, but to help them improve can be very useful. 

Feeling good and being good, are not the same things: athletes and teams lose sporting events all the time because they weren't prepared for their opponents. They thought they were much better than they actually were or their opponent wasn't nearly as good as they thought and lost the game, fight, match, whatever it might be, because they didn't do their homework and didn't play hard and well enough. You have to know where you are and where you stand in life, to know where you are and where you stand in life. Which sounds like the best example of stating the obvious in the history of the world and if that was Captain Obvious making that statement, the Captain would then get promoted to Major Obvious immediately.

But that doesn't make the truth lest truthful and less important. And using soft language to hide one's weaknesses, doesn't do a damn thing to help the person you claim to care about, because if anything those flaws will just grow, because the person isn't aware of their flaws and isn't doing anything to address them. 

John Birch Society: Robin Kinderman: 'Millennials Ushering in The Age of Socialism'

Source:John Birch Society- Robin Kinderman: for a JBS spokesperson, she sounds very rational. LOL

"Thanks to the Great Recession of 2008 and a lack of proper education, Millennial's financial status has them voting in favor of Socialism. Will they wake up and see it’s one of the greatest threats to America today? Find out in this episode of Straight Talk!"

From John Birch Society

Source:Charlotte Observer- "OMG, Bernie Sanders is, awesome!!!" LOL

I guess I have a different take here even though I agree with Robin Kinderman that the Great Recession and leftist politicians ( shall we call them ) coming around and promising them all sorts of so-called free stuff to help them get by, is why a lot of Millennials support of socialism. But even if you grant all of that you would have to forget about another possibility of why Millennials say they support socialism and not consider that there might be social and cultural reasons why some Millennials at least say they support socialism.

Every young generation at least since the TV age has had some love affair with socialism, at least until they enter their 30s and grow up: get a good job, get married, have kids, buy their first home, etc. And then that love affair for socialism goes away once they start paying taxes and having other bills to pay, and then realize that they can now support themselves and decide that they're making a good living now and can pay their own way, don't need government taking care of them, and ask why should they be paying so much in taxes, if they don't need those government services.

Socialism was popular with young Baby Boomers and then the 1980s comes around with the economic boom from that decade, as well Boomers are already grown up by then and now have kids, with their own homes, making a good living, and no longer want socialism simply because they don't believe that they need it. My Generation X, has never had any love affair for socialism for the most part, because we grew up during great economic times for the most part and have decided that we don't want it for the most part. Millennials, are different because a lot of them grew up, or just out of college during the Great Recession and socialism is more appealing to them which is why a politician like Bernie Sanders ( a self-described Democratic Socialist ) has so much appeal for them.

But the economy and whatever current economic times the country might be going through are not the only reasons why some people might fall in love with socialism: as I mentioned earlier, Millennials today say they like socialism and Socialists, because Socialists are cool. So much about being a Millennial is being cool; having all the designer clothes, all the gadgets, following the right celebrities, TV programs, movies, entertainment in general, and following Socialists, because of all the political factions in America, Socialists are always the coolest. Which is why so many so-called Hollywood Leftists, claim to either be Socialists themselves ( even though they're some of the richest people in America and at least love capitalism privately and are actually Liberal Democrats or Conservatives politically, at least as far as how they personally live and not Socialists ) or back Socialists, because they always want to be cool ( or awesome ) themselves.

I don't think you'll ever convince me that Millennials actually love socialism as an ideology and actually believe in everything that comes from the socialist philosophy: all the high taxes, regulations, restrictions on personal wealth and freedom in general, centralization of governmental power and all the government in general. Maybe when they're in their 40s and still claiming to be Socialists and are living on communes and are no longer personally subsidizing Americans capitalism with their real love affairs for new technology, celebrity culture, coffee houses, designer clothing, and just live off what they personally make and share their own wealth, then maybe I'll start taking them seriously as Socialists, who actually support the socialist philosophy and not just looking to be part of some social fad and bandwagon.

 I mean seriously, if you did a national poll and the only people you polled were Millennials and asked them would you give up all your gadgets, coffee houses, stopped favorite celebrities, reality TV, social media, Hollywood, and designer clothing, in order to defeat and end American capitalism: how many would even say they would do that, let alone actually do that? I doubt many would at least actually give up all if any of their favorite American capitalist hobbies and activities just to defeat American capitalism. At the end of the day, Millennials love American capitalism too. Perhaps not as mush as Professor Milton Friedman, but they love American capitalism and not socialism. Just look at their own personal spending habits and lifestyles. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

American Thinker: Michael Nollet: 'Not All Conservatives Are Defenders of Joe McCarthy'

Source:American Thinker- U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy: the father of McCarthyite fascism. 

"On April 6, 2019, AT published the article, “On Joe McCarthy, Washington Post Gets It Embarrassingly Wrong,” by the estimable Jack Cashill. It drew hundreds of comments, which were overwhelmingly laudatory of McCarthy. The relatively few anti-McCarthy comments were pounced on by the McCarthy partisans.

McCarthy’s (few) detractors in the comments section of that article included this writer. My comments against McCarthy drew lots of ire and opprobrium from his fans. I thought that it would be best to write a rejoinder.

Perhaps my disdain for McCarthy is almost genetic, for it comes from my late father’s personal knowledge of him. My father, Lt. Col. Anthony R. Nollet, was a Marine Corps aviator and knew McCarthy well, they having served together in the same squadron that flew Douglas Dauntless SBD dive-bombers in the South Pacific. McCarthy was the Air Intelligence Officer for that squadron. My father passed on to posterity three stories about McCarthy, based on his personal observations. Perhaps this “oral history” has predisposed me to despise McCarthy.

Read more about Joe McCarthy the card welcher at American Thinker.  

“In mid-1954, a riveted nation watched Senator Joseph McCarthy accuse the U.S. Army of being infiltrated by communists. But the army’s lawyer, Joseph Welch refused to be bullied, and struck back.”

From the Series: America in Color: The 1950s”

Source:Smithsonian Channel- Joe McCarthy: the father of McCarthyite fascism. 

From the Smithsonian Channel

"In mid-1954, a riveted nation watched Senator Joseph McCarthy accuse the U.S. Army of being infiltrated by communists. But the army's lawyer, Joseph Welch refused to be bullied, and struck back.

From the Series: America in Color: The 1950s"

When I first saw this article from the right-wing pro-Trumpian American Thinker, I thought I might actually get to read an article from an actual Conservative, about how real Conservatives don't actually support Joe McCarthy and his attempts to out Americans simply because they're Communists who use their First Amendment right to free speech in this county. Which protects every American's right to free speech including radicals like Communists and Socialists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and other radicals on the Far-Right.

If anything the First Amendment protects radicals right to free speech more than mainstream Americans, because radicals need more protection. But silly me this article from Michael Nullet was about Joe McCarthy welching on his card debts when he was in the U.S. Marines. So I guess I'll have to make the argument for why Conservatives don't support McCarthyism and every other form of fascism Right or Left all by myself. Which might be more fun anyway. 

This might sound silly to anyone on the Far-Right, as well as hyper-partisans on the Far-Left: but when I think of Conservatives and conservatism, I look at it from a constitutional and political perspective, not religious, cultural, or tribalist and people who view themselves as the real Patriots ( whatever the country is ) and anyone who disagrees with them, or looks different, practices a different religion, live a different lifestyle, as traitors or invaders to their beloved country. 

From Wikipedia

"Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.[2] The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."

So if you're an actual Conservative you not only believe in things like the U.S, Constitution and the First Amendment ( which guarantees our right to free speech ) but you believe in conserving those rights and values. Remember: Conservatives are supposed to believe in conserving. So you're not looking for government to punish people and out them simply because they hold political views that are either not mainstream or inline with the current government's thinking.

It's that old Ronald Reagan line and I'm paraphrasing here, but that democracy is big enough for the mainstream thinkers, as well as the radicals. And when you attempt to harm and eliminate the free speech rights of one side, simply because you don't like what they have to say, you put your own free speech rights in jeopardy, because then the'll come for you. Which is something that these so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left with their political correctness movement simply don't understand.

There was nothing conservative about Joe McCarthy's fascist McCarthyism from the 1950s, at least from a political or constitutional perspective: you don't conserve the First Amendment by attacking the free speech rights of people that you don't agree with and are offended by. Of course we don't want Communists running our country and don't want communism in our government, but you don't defeat Communists and communism by acting like them, but by beating them with facts and evidence in the free market of ideas known as liberal democracy.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Biographics: Simon Whistler- 'Theodore Roosevelt: The Old Lion'

Source:Biographics- TR: The Old Progressive Lion

"Few believed that the frail, asthmatic little boy who loved to collect insects would amount to anything special, much less the youngest and most robust president in US history."

Source:Biographics

During the 2020 presidential primaries in the Democratic Party especially with the rise of socialism ( or democratic socialism ) in the Democratic Party, we're going to hear labels like Progressive, Socialist, and Democratic Socialist thrown out a lot. Especially thrown around like they're all the same things, or thrown around the difference between a Socialist and a Progressive is the difference between powerful and strong, or tiny and miniature, shrimp and dwarf, etc: when the fact is Progressive, is not just different from Socialist ( democratic or communist ) but clearly different. Which is what I'm going to layout with this piece.

When people think of Progressives, they tend to think of Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal which gave America its regulatory state. Or they think of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which gave America its public safety net. Harry Truman and his Fair Deal, which would've been an expansion of the New Deal. Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society and the expansion of the New Deal. And today's so-called Progressives ( Democratic Socialists, actually ) say what they want to do with their welfare state agenda is simply just expand it and give Americans more welfare state benefits.

There a lot of problems with comparing today's so-called Progressives, with the Progressives of before who truly are the Progressives: Progressives like the men that I've already mentioned and we're just talking about government economic policy so far, but Progressives are not anti-capitalist, not anti-individual, not even anti-individual freedom: if anything Progressives believe more in individual freedom than even Conservatives and even Libertarians, because Progressives believe that individual freedom should be for everyone and not just to people that are born to wealth.

And where Progressives really separate from Conservatives and Libertarians, as well as Socialists, is that they believe government should be used so that everyone can achieve individual freedom. Instead of Socialists, who view individual freedom as selfish and you need a big national government to take care of everyone else instead. And Conservatives and Libertarians, who believe that government has no role in expanding freedom, that freedom can be achieved by everyone on their own.

If you look at what Progressives have truly accomplished and what they believe in, instead of looking at what Socialists have accomplished ( democratic or communist ) and what they believe in and have accomplished, you know that Progressives are actually very different from Socialists: the Square Deal, which gave us our regulatory state. The New Deal, which was a public safety net for people who truly fall on hard times and in real need of financial assistance. And the Great Society, which was an expansion of the public safety net ( not welfare state ) where every senior American is guaranteed health insurance and more financial assistance for low-income Americans.

The other thing about Progressives and progressivism and why at least I believe it has real national appeal in America, is because it's bipartisan and very practical: people who are supposed to be Centrists in America, are actually very Progressive. Like Republican Senator Susan Collins, or Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, former Vice President and current Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden and I could go on. America has moved so far to the Right and Left now that Progressives look like the New-Centrists, with progressivism perhaps becoming the most mainstream political philosophy in America. Progressives, are Progressives, not Socialists and the there's a big difference. 

Bernie Sanders: 'Guide To a Political Revolution'

Source:Amazon- The Democratic Socialist's playbook?

"In the Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution, Independent congressman, presidential candidate and activist Bernie Sanders continues his fight against the imbalances in the nation’s status quo, and shows you how to make a difference to effect the changes America―and the world―need to create a better tomorrow.

Throughout the Presidential campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders promised voters a future to believe in through his progressive platform and a vision for America worth fighting for. This vision calls for an economic, environmental, health care, and social justice revolution beyond the stagnant agendas of Democrat and Republican politicians to build an equitable future for all Americans―especially the younger generation that will inherit the consequences of decisions made now.

Inside this practical and inspiring guide to effecting change in today’s world, you’ll learn how to:
· Understand and navigate the current system of policy and government
· Work to change the system to reflect your values and to protect our society’s most vulnerable
· Organize for the causes you care about most
· Resources for further reading and organizations to get involved with

With more than two decades of Washington D.C. insider knowledge and experience, Senator Sanders knows how to fight and change the system from within, a system desperately in need of reform in health care, immigration, taxes, higher education, climate change, and criminal justice.

The political revolution is just beginning. What role will you play?" 

From Amazon

Source:The Film Archives: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- At Iowa University in 2017- Bernie Sanders: Guide To a Political Revolution

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: ( Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont ) at Iowa University in 2017.

If there is anything that I don't respect and even don't like about Senator Bernie Sanders when he talks about his own politics now, is how he now self-describes his own politics. He doesn't run away from either the Democratic Socialist or Socialist label now, but always jumps to correct the person that he's talking to or his questioning him in saying that: "I'm a Democratic Socialist" when someone calls him a Socialist. He does that because he doesn't want to be confused with Communists ( who are authoritarian Socialists ) and I understand that. What he personally supports and backs now at least since he's been n the Senate if not his entire career in Congress, would put him on the Democratic Socialist wing of Socialists and socialism and not with Communists.

It's not that Senator Sanders is quick to correct people when they call him a Socialist and say that he's a Socialist that I have an issue with and instead goes by Democratic Socialist, it's that he now tries to lump in Progressives and progressivism with his form of socialism ( can I call it ) as if they're the same things when they're not. Bernie, is way to the left of Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and even Senator Sherrod Brown today ( who really is a Progressive ) and more inline with Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, David McReynolds, George McGovern, and other prominent Democratic Socialists from back in the day.

You put Fidel Castro, Bernie Sanders, and Theodore Roosevelt, all in the same room and you have three different political animals all representing three different political factions and ideologies.

Fidel, being the Communist. Bernie, being the Democratic Socialist. And TR, representing the Progressives. The test of whether someone is a Progressive or not, is not about how much government that person believes in and how high taxes should be, but how much do they believe in progress, how fast that progress should to be achieved, and does government have a major role in trying to create that progress or not.

If we went by Bernie Sanders of a Progressive, then Fidel Castro would be the most progressive of these three men, even though a lot if not most of what Fidel believes in is very regressive with all the state control, lack of checks and balances on government, and lack of individual freedom in all forms that Communists believe in.

Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist, pure and simple: that means he's someone who believes in a capitalist, private enterprise economic system, but that you need a national government large enough to ensure that no one has to go without the basic necessities of life. Which is where a welfare state comes in and that taxes have to be high enough across the board to fund that welfare state. But also to prevent people from being individually wealthy on their own, while others live in poverty or are part of a struggling working class.

Which is very different from a Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or a Lyndon Johnson who believed in a public safety net for people who truly needed it, but that for people who are dong well and can afford to take care of themselves, those people should be allowed to do that and make their own economic decisions, since they don't need big government to do that for them. 

Classic Film and TV Cafe: Rick 29- 'Murder One: The Sensational First Season'

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe- Daniel Benxali: as attorney Ted Hoffman.

"When wealthy philanthropist Richard Cross is arrested for the murder of his mistress's 15-year-old sister, he secures the services of defense attorney Ted Hoffman. Within days, though, a mysterious woman comes forward to provide Cross (Stanley Tucci) with an alibi. He is released and the police quickly charge actor Neil Avedon with the homicide. When Cross pleads with Ted (Daniel Benzali) to defend Neil, the attorney accepts the case."

Read the rest of this piece at Classic Film and TV Cafe

Source:Apathy Monger- Part of the team at Hoffman and Associates.

"Murder One Season One Opening Credits"

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe- Stanley Tucci: as Richard Cross

Just to give you little background about Murder One and the genre in Hollywood that it represented: in the late 1970s with superstar shows like Dallas, soap operas went prime time. Dallas with CBS, that ABC got into the prime time soap opera game with Dynasty. CBS, launched another prime time soap with Falcon Crest. NBC, with St. Elsewhere. ABC, in the mid and late 1980s with Thirty Something. Because of Generation X, shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place in the early 90s. And then prime time soaps just even bigger in the mid 90s with shows like NYPD Blue ( from ABC ) and then ER. ( From NBC )

Murder One, ( from ABC ) was different at least in the sense that it was a prime time soap opera dealing with the criminal justice system and that the show was almost exclusively from the point of the view of the defense team. When you saw the prosecutors, they were either in court, giving a press conference, or in communication with the defense team. And the first season of Murder One did have several other legal and criminal cases that Hoffman & Associates dealt with, but their biggest cases was the Neal Avdeon who was a Hollywood actor who was accused of killing his girlfriend.

By the midpoint of season one, Murder One was practically all about the Avedon case where the general partner of Hoffman & Associates Ted Hoffman, is completely tied up and basically has his life taken over by this one murder case and getting his client acquitted of the murder charge.

There are shows and series that seem to go on forever that I wish I had never heard of, but because they're so popular, even though they're so stupid where the main characters on the show are really only famous for getting into tense, heated, public arguments and fights. Where these people are basically just losers who can't stay out of trouble. And of course I'm thinking of what's called reality TV.

And then there are what I at least call cookie-cutter sitcoms where it's hard to tell one of these shows from another, because they're all basically about the same things: young to early middle age people, who aren't married, no kids, live in lofts that are probably in New York and spend most of their time hanging out at coffee houses and places like that. And those shows go on forever, even though there's really not much if any difference from one cookie-cutter sitcom to another other than the cast members are different, because that's what young people are into.

Murder One, falls into a different category as a show that had a great cast, had great writers, that wasn't like the other shows that it was competing with, but instead almost completely different; maybe only LA Law could you compare with Murder One and yet Murder One despite everything that it had going for it with the great background and depth to that show, it doesn't make and is gone after season 2.

ABC and Steven Bochco made some fatal mistakes with Murder One: going up against ER on the same night and time slot during season one, which just killed the ratings of Murder One right off the bat. And then replacing Daniel Benzali who was perfect for the role of Ted Hoffman, with Anthony LaPaglia, who is a fine actor, but not someone you want as your lead actor in a big show like this. But Murder One, didn't fail because it had cheesy writing, or a weak cast, weak directing, or anything like that, but of how it was managed with the tools that they had. It should've had its own time slot from episode one and let the show ride on its own. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

George Carlin: On Pro-Life

Source:HBO- Part of George Carlin's 1997 HBO special?

"George Carlin Back in town"

Source:George Carlin

I'm aware that writing satire about abortion is risky, so before someone feels the need to point that out to me, I just thought that I lay out that I already know that. But with the Alabama antiabortion law this week, I feel the need to mention this and even use humor to do that, because of how hypocritical and frankly dishonest people who say they're pro-life are on this issue. They're just asking for a verbal ass kicking on this issue. It's almost as if they're walking up to me and begging me to set them straight on this.

Hearing someone who says they're pro-life on abortion and pro-life in general, even though they don't seem to give a damn ( to be kind ) about kids being shot in school, or at least not to the point that they're willing to do a damn thing about it, is like hearing some so-called pro-choice leftist who is really only pro-choice on abortion and perhaps a couple other issues, even though they want big government telling people what they can do on practically every other personal choice issue everything from gambling to what people can eat and drink.

Being pro-choice on abortion, doesn't make you pro-choice: it just means you're pro-choice on one issue. And how pro-choice you are in general, depends on what your positions are on a whole host of other issues. And being pro-life on abortion, doesn't make you pro-life if you believe that mentally handicapped and criminally insane people have a constitutional right to a firearm and easy access to our schools in this country. It just means that you are antiabortion.

When someone claims they're pro-life because they oppose abortion, try to find out how pro-life they are and ask about a how they feel about a whole host of other life issues and not just firearms, but the lives of low-income children who are stuck in awful schools and everything else: what's life like for poor children in this country and do they care at all about those kids, or do they stop caring once those kids are born.

If there is anyone or anything that American politics and politicians are good for, it's the media, including comedians, especially satirists who get to make their living on reporting about dishonest and hypocritical our politicians are and stupid our people are who continue to vote for the same crooks and liars to continue to represent them in government.

I guess it takes an asshole to know another asshole and if you are an asshole, why wouldn't you have anyone else other than asshole representing you: actually, why would an asshole deserve anyone better than another asshole representing them in government. American politics and government is garbage in and garbage out. And the people who give us our taxpayer funded garbage are the voters themselves. And this Alabama antiabortion story is a perfect example of that.

New York Daily News: Nelson Rockefeller- 'On The Future of The Republican Party: 1964 GOP Convention'

Source:New York Daily News- Governor Nelson Rockefeller: Progressive Republican, New York 

"Nelson Rockefeller, who died on January 26, 2017 spoke passionately about his concern for the future of Republican Party at 1964 GOP Convention."

Source:New York Daily News
Before people try to learn and understand Nelson Rockefeller or any other Republican from that era, they need to know what the GOP was like before Barry Goldwater and his coalition of Conservative-Libertarians, as well as Christian-Conservatives and there where the party was moving and has become ever since. And then know what it meant to be an extremist back then in the GOP and what that means now. Because these terms and labels are a lot different today, from where they were then.

Pre-1961 or so, the Republican Party was essentially a Progressive-Republican party: which I know sounds like jumbo shrimp, or a hot day in Seattle, freezing weather in South Florida, but they were basically a progressive Center-Right party, with a conservative-libertarian faction in it. Pre-1972 or so people who are called Libertarians today, were basically Conservative Republicans. And a lot of people who would be called Progressive Democrats let's say in the 1970s or so, or Centrist Democrats, were Progressive Republicans before that.

Things like the civil rights movement, Cultural Revolution, the Vietnam War, and other major events from the 1960s basically flipped flopped the two major party's. Right-wing Dixiecrats in and out of Congress like Senator Strom Thurmond and other members of the Southern Caucus in Congress became Republicans. And lot of Progressive Northeastern Republicans became Democrats.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, represented what was then the old guard of the Republican Party: the Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party that was progressive on civil rights and regulatory state issues, believed in a public safety net issues, public education, pro-Right to Organize, but were hawkish on national security and foreign policy, as well a law enforcement, and didn't believe government should be running large deficits and debt. So when Governor Rockefeller, warned about extremism taking over the Republican Party, he was talking about Barry Goldwater and his Conservative-Libertarians, replacing the Progressives in the party like himself and he was right.

Dan Mitchell: ‘Augmenting The Collection of Alexandria O. Cortez Humor’: This Should be Fun!

Source:Funny- "Iphone, Memes, and Starbucks: ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ PROUDLYINTRODUCES THESOCIALIST IPHONE, SOCIALIST”

Source:The New Democrat

"If Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t exist, I might have to invent her since she helps to make socialism such an easy target for mockery.

Though I actually admire the fact that she doesn’t try to disguise her agenda. Like “Crazy Bernie,” she openly and boldly pushes for an ideological agenda that would put the United States somewhere between Greece and Venezuela in the global rankings for economic liberty.

And while that would be a horrible outcome, it does generate the satire for today’s column.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell’s piece at Dan Mitchell

“A conservative columnist reported a ‘terrifying’ experience at an event featuring Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which horrifying subjects like healthcare and education for children were discussed. Scary!”

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert- Stephen Colbert: on Representative AOC 

From The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

I guess I have mixed feelings about Freshman Representative ( or is Freshman now considered to be sexist ) Alexandria O. Cortez from New York City and I guess most of them are negative: but if there are any positive reasons about the start to her career in the House of Representatives and political career in general, is that she’s a great reminder that the Far-Left of the Democratic Party is still the Far-Left: another way of saying not ready for prime-time. It’s not that AOC and company aren’t running the Democratic Party yet, or they’re not running the House Democratic Caucus, it’s that they’re not even ready to run these institutions yet.

Before I get into her socialist politics and economic views, let’s just start with Congress first, especially in the House where Representative Cortez and other Freshman House Democrats back up my point on this: it’s one thing to be a Freshman Representative from gee I don’t know, New York City ( just to pick a city ) where maybe 7-10 New Yorkers believed that President Donald should’ve been impeached on day one after Democrats officially took control of the House: it’s easy to do that when you have no political power other than your vote and voice.

A little different when you’re not just in charge of the House Democratic Caucus which is what Nancy Polosi was doing up until 6 months ago, but now you’re running the entire institution other than the minority party and you have members in your caucus that don’t represent New York or anywhere else in the Northeast, or anywhere on the West Coast, but represent Midwestern districts where President Trump isn’t considered the devil there and maybe they don’t like him, but they know he’s up for reelection in 2020 and they kind of think what’s the point of impeaching the President, when not a single House Republican will vote for it and perhaps not even a single Senate Republican will vote for conviction, when you would need to hold all 47 Senate Democrats and pick up 20 Senate Republicans for conviction. And they also know that you might lose 5 or more Senate Democrats, if the House impeaches.

Monday morning and sideline quarterbacking is one of the oldest games in Washington: easy to say this is what I would do if I were in charge. Another to not just make a real decision knowing what the consequences of that decision might be and then trying to live with them. Alexandria O. Cortez, might be the like totally awesome, OMG rock star in politics ( at least with Hollywood and on the Far-Left ) of whatever they’re calling her, but being the coolest girl or person in the room doesn’t give you political power. You can win elections that way at least at the House level and below that. But as Beto O’Rourke and his presidential campaign is finding out, you need more than that to be successful in politics other than: “vote for me, because I look like a Hollywood actor and I I got a cool speaking voice, talk with my hands a lot, relate well with pop culture, connect with people in coffee houses and trendy bars, etc.”

As far as Representative Cortez’s politics, especially her socialist economics: for someone who says that American capitalism is bad, perhaps even racist, and everything else that she claims to not like about it, she lives very well with it. And it’s not just her, but you can make this criticism about anyone else in her generation who claims to not like American capitalism: I mean which government agency or state-run company produces all of her designer suits, or Starbucks coffee, her I-phone, the car she drives , etc. I mean hearing her or anyone else from her generation or anyone else who says there a Socialist too, is like listening to a so-called animal rights activist talking about the cruelty of eating meat, while they’re wearing a leather jacket: why would anyone who is of sound mind and intelligence take that person seriously. And the same thing with the so-called environmental activist who drives around in an SUV talking about the need to get off of oil and gas, because they’re bad for the environment.

I mean it’s easy to say you’re a Socialist in some Hollywood movie or perhaps in Hollywood in general, because probably no one is going to take you seriously anyway. Similar to Manhattan, Hollywood is the most capitalist and liberal democratic ( liberal democratic in the classic sense, at least ) places in America. Perhaps the last two places in America that would ever want America to become some type of a socialist state, simply because they would no longer want to work and live here and pay the taxes. But it’s another to now hold public office, because now you’ll be held accountable for everything that you say, propose, all your votes, committee appearances. And I believe at least that you have some responsibility to not only live up to your rhetoric, but to live by it as well. You really believe that American capitalism sucks so much, then try living without it.

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: 'Moral Panic Over Sex Work'

Source:Reason Magazine- Referring to New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft: who was arrested for prostitution

"Police often accuse people of "sex trafficking." Usually, it’s simply prostitution.

Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was caught in a "sex trafficking" sting.

Law enforcment "had all of these big announcements at first saying that…these women were being forced there and they weren't allowed to leave," Brown explains to John Stossel.

But now prosecutors in the Kraft case concede that there was no trafficking.

That's usually the case when it comes to "sex trafficking" busts, says Brown: "I'd say 99% of the headlines are not true."

Brown covered a similar case in Seattle where the cops claimed to have busted a sex trafficking ring. In a press conference, King County Sheriff John Urquhart said: "These women are true victims."

But the court documents "actually paint a very, very different story," Brown points out. "No one has been charged with human trafficking in that case."

Yet politicians and the media often exaggerate the frequency of trafficking. Congresswoman Ann Wagner claims, "Right now almost 300,000 American children are at risk".

That 300,000 number is repeated constantly in the media. The number is based on a study that has been disavowed by the lead author, Richard Estes. "Many people debunked the study and say, 'This is just a total bullcrap number,'" Brown says.

She adds, "When we have these exaggerated numbers, it forces people to go into this crazy emergency moral panic mode that ends up not helping the actual problem that we have."

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason." 

Source:Reason Magazine

Just for the record: I'm not in favor of what's called sex trafficking where you have at least very vulnerable, but perhaps very attractive women who are picked up ( if not kidnapped and enslaved ) with the promise that as long as they perform sex well, they'll always be taken care of. That kind of thing is dangerous, as well as immoral, and should be illegal. But that's not what this is about anyway and I only mention that because people who advocate for keeping prostitution illegal both on the Right and Left, say that we can't have prostitution, because it leads to sex trafficking. Which is simply wrong, but that should be pointed out. 

Anyone who argues that people should be in complete control over their own bodies, would be in favor of legalizing prostitution. If you believe in men should be in complete control over their own bodies as well, you should be in favor of legalizing prostitution, with the belief and knowledge that free, educated adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how their own bodies should be used and what should go into them. 

It's one thing to argue that women should be able to make their own medical decisions whether it comes to abortion or whatever the medical procedure might be and say that women can make these decisions for themselves and we should keep big government out of the hospitals and our bedrooms: but if you really believe big government should be out of the bedroom, then why would you be in favor of sting operations done by law enforcement and breaking into motel rooms to breakup people who are having consensual sex with each other, even if that sex was financially compensated.  

I get the belief that prostitution is a dangerous business and it violates a lot of people's moral and religious values: but should that alone to decide whether people should have to go to jail or not: wouldn't a better approach and more cost-effective approach to law enforcement that instead of arresting people that for engaging in activities that can have negative consequences, that we instead arrest people for hurting innocent people and not what they do to themselves? Which of course would be a limited government approach, but also a liberal one, because it's saying that we don't want or need big government in our bedrooms, or in this case motel rooms.

Prostitution, is not just called the oldest profession in the world, but it actually is with perhaps politics being a close second, but the reason why it is the oldest profession in the world is because people love sex to the point that they won't allow their loneliness stop them from having sex, or perhaps they don't believe they're getting enough from their girlfriend or wife, etc, whatever the reasons. And just because you outlaw something because you don't like it and it can be dangerous, doesn't mean it goes away: all you've done is make it illegal and are now responsible for enforcing your own laws and in this case that means arresting free adults simply for having consensual, but compensated sex. 

And since we know that prostitution has been around as long as humans have been living and it's never going away, wouldn't a better approach be to legalize it and then regulate it and treat it like any other adult entertainment business: require anyone who runs or manages a prostitution business to get license. Require all prostitutes and their clients to get licensed and medically cleared on a regular basis. Tax the business, workers, and clients.  Instead of locking people up simply for engaging in consensual, but compensated sex. 

Washington Monthly: Paul Baumann: 'When Religion is Too Free'

Source:Washington Monthly- Freedom of Religion in America

"But Waldman is too sanguine about the benefits “Americanizing” will have on the DNA of “ancient” religions. Some real tension should exist between an individualistic, often hedonistic society and traditional religious communities. Liberal democracy must cultivate in its citizens the virtues of loyalty, devotion, and sacrifice. Illiberal institutions such as organized religions, the family, and the military can do that in ways that economic and cosmopolitan liberalism cannot. The competitive marketplace, where ambition and immediate gratification are principally rewarded, is simply not up to the task of protecting the poor, the sick, the vulnerable, and the dying—or possibly even the nation. In this regard then, religious liberty is a necessary but not sufficient means for unifying a country as diverse, heedless, and contentious as ours. If both religion and democracy are to flourish, more than a cacophony of choices is needed; a common language that is not merely a celebration of our differences is required. Religion, like democracy, is threatened when the marketplace becomes the predominant measure of value. "

Read the rest of Paul Baumann's piece at source:Washington Monthly

Source:Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'Freedom of Religion' Part of the First Amendment 

When I first saw the title of Paul Baumann's piece in The Washington Monthly, I thought this was about making an argument for outlawing Freedom of Religion in America, or at least getting the state involved and regulating it, but it was really a critique about Steven Waldman's book Sacred Liberty, which argues for Freedom of Religion in America. So I'm glad to see that there is still some support for pluralism and liberal democracy in general with the Far-Left in America ( New-Left, if you prefer ) and that there not all total collectivists and statists looking to outlaw individualism in this country.

As far as Freedom of Religion in religion in general in America: if you're familiar with this blog you know that a lot about what we write about and advocate for is liberal democracy. The photo of John F. Kennedy and what it means to be a Liberal on the front page of the blog, is a pretty good clue there. So of course we believe in pluralism and liberal democracy in general. We're not Communists who again are looking to eliminate all forms of individualism and make everyone dependent on the state.

But we're not Theocrats either who want everyone to follow and believe in the same religion and therefor require everyone to live by some set of religious values either. We're Liberals, because we believe in liberal democracy which includes and the broader belief in Freedom of Speech, which protects Atheists and even Communists, as well as Theocrats who do want a state religion in this country. And we also believe in the Separation of Church and State which not only protects Freedom of Religion in America, as well as state interference into all religions in this country. And protects everyone's right not have to follow or live by a particular religion, Or have to follow and live by any religion at all.

In a country like America that's so vast and so diverse and not just racially and ethnically, but culturally and religiously as well, you to have a liberal democratic federal republic in it for the country to have any shot at not just thriving, but surviving and staying together as part of one union. Which is why all racial, ethnic, and religious groups have to have the same guaranteed rights and responsibilities under law. Otherwise this country would break up with different factions believing that America is not for them and that it's time to breakup.

The Economist: 'What if Women Ruled The World?'

Source:The Economist- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, New York City)

"Only 6.3% of all international leaders are women. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Liberian president and Africa's first elected female head of state, suggests ways to redress the balance."

Source:The Economist

To sort of have fun with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's comment about the world would be a better place if women ruled the world: if you're a regular of the so-called reality TV series Housewives, you might not think the world would be a safer place if women ruled the world. Most of the time they're either arguing, swearing at each other, even physically fighting and throwing things at each other. Which might be the only reason why those shows are so popular with all the catfighting. A good so-called reality TV show makes the WWE look like a golf match: way too quiet and peaceful.

As far as women ruling the world and to take a more serious look at this: ( for a change ) the only way to achieve power in America or anywhere else in the world, is to achieve power. Which I know sort of sounds like Captain Obvious on his best day, but anything that's worth doing is worth working for. You don't achieve power in America or anywhere else by sitting at home or at some coffee house staring at your phone and hoping someone else does it for you. But instead you have to enter the free market of ideas ( also known as liberal democracy ) and put yourself out there and make to case to anyone who will hear you why you're the most qualified candidate out there and should hold that office, instead of the man you are running against or perhaps another woman that you might be running against.

Some might argue ( like radical feminists ) that it's hard for women to run office because of sexism and all the negative stereotypes women especially female candidates get about being tough and not seeming feminine enough and all of that: try making that case to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement of the 1960s: what if Dr. King believed that his civil rights movement wasn't worth it because of all the violence and racism that he and his movement would face from those racist, Neo-Confederate state government's in the South and decided: "the hell with it, this is not worth it." You think America and the world would be different if women were in charge: imagine how different America would be if the African-American community was satisfied with living as second-class citizens and in some cases not even treated like citizens at all.

I realize the women's movement ( whatever that is supposed to be today ) is not an exact parallel to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but there are similarities in as far as what both movements were up against from the outset. And in the civil rights case and to a large extent with a lot of female candidates and female politicians today, a lot of these people knew that from the outset as well and decided that it was worth it and that just because they're female that doesn't make them any less qualified to hold public office than their male counterparts. Which is how 70 or more women get elected to Congress last year with most of those women getting elected to the House. ( You want more female Senators, they have to run for office first )

And I just get back to my first serious point to close this: anything in life regardless of which country it is that's worth achieving in life is worth working for. Even if there are a lot of obstacles that are thrown at you and even unfair obstacles: like people being judged simply by their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. And a lot of times you need those thoroughbreds from the outset who don't completely throw caution to the wind, but knows exactly what's in front of them and takes it on anyway with a game plan to accomplish their goals. You don't win games by sitting on the sidelines. And you don't win elections and get elected by sitting at home.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Big Think: Kurt Anderson- 'Why America Confuses Fantasy For Reality- Celebrity, Hollywood & Disneyland'

Source:Big Think- Newsflash for unfortunately a lot of Americans: Fantasy Land is not the real world.

"The start of the 20th century was the birth of a strange new reality in the United States. The advent of the moving image, of Hollywood and sudden celebrity, caused a quantum shift in how Americans thought about the experience of life. Actors were elevated to the status of superheroes and demigods, and those left in the obscurity of the masses began to desire that elusive privilege: fame. But where America really went haywire, author Kurt Andersen explains, is when the cult of celebrity and the cult of capitalism merged: it was the opening of Disneyland in 1955. A bizarre reality where advertising met animation. You could buy real wares, from fake characters, in real stores, with make-believe themes. "What happened in Disneyland... did not stay there," says Andersen. From Mickey Mouse all the way to the White House, Anderson doesn't find it at all surprising that Americans might have a hard time telling what's true from what's false. He calls it the fantasy-industrial complex, and it might just be America's beautifully branded nightmare. Kurt Andersen's new book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History."

Source:Big Think

Source:Brainy Quote- Actress Katherine Hepburn: with a great quote 

I guess I have a different take on this even though I agree with most of what Kurt Anderson is saying here and my broader point is about what's called reality TV ( even though there's almost nothing that's actually real about it ) and Hollywood in general. ( Speaking of reality TV ) 

Kate Hepburn and you can see her quote up here, has a great quote on life: "life is hard. After all, it kills you." The name of the person who also has a great quote on life escapes me right now, but he said that life is basically hard and most of it is negative, etc, and that we should try to take advantage of it.

And I agree with most of that, but lets we had to live without any entertainment and no escapes from realty whatsoever: how much more difficult would life be then? The reason why America has the largest entertainment industry in the world, ( also known as Hollywood ) is the same reason why we have what's called reality TV ( which is actually tabloid TV, which is very different )  life is hard and we all need those escapes from reality and to just be able to chill and not think about reality for a few hours during the day.

And for some people they need more than that and for others they can afford that:

Imagine a so-called reality TV show that was actually reality TV and actually showed what everyday life was like for these so-called celebrities: ( and in some cases wannabe celebrities )

What work was like for them, what their family life was like, what breakfast and dinner was like, we got to see them picking up their kids from school or dropping them off, that we got to see all of these things and not just two women swearing at loud at each other and calling eacb other horrible people and having public fights, that we got to see all the mundane in their life that almost every other American goes through in life: how fast would the ratings on the Housewives shows on Bravo plummet if they were actually reality TV and now just all the drama that they want to show us in order to drive ratings? And in many cases preplanned drama where the producers actually encourage these so-called real people to act out.

Life for a lot of people is tough and in many cases boring, at least compared with what life is supposed to be like for these so-called reality TV stars. And as a result you get a lot of people who want to be like their favorite so-called celebrities: who act out like them, talk like them, eat the same food, have the same pet nicknames for their friends, associates, family, etc, shop at the same stores, ( if they can afford it ) eat at the same restaurants, ( if they can afford it ) drink the same coffee, ( if they can afford it ) style their homes the exact same way as their favorite so-called celebrities, ( if they can afford it ) try to live the exact same lives as their favorite so-called celebrities, ( if they can afford it ) and not just follow them on their favorite social media sites.

And Hollywood movies and TV where there are actual professional actors involved like comedies and dramas, people consume these shows and movies for the exact same reasons as tabloid TV and sports for the same reasons, because they want even if it's just a 2-4 escape for their actual reality, they feel they need that and in many cases might actually need all of this fantasy in their lives if life really sucks that much for them.

If the average American was a celebrity, then they wouldn't need so-called reality TV in their lives and the rest of Hollywood: but if the average American was famous, then no one would be famous, because we would just be like some small town in the middle of nowhere that's days trip away from the nearest big city, where everyone knows each other. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Inside Edition: 'Why Long Island Lolita Amy Fisher- Shot Her Lover's Wife'

Source:Inside Edition- Amy Fisher: about to be sentenced for shooting Mary Jo Buttafuoco in 1992.

"On May 19, 1992, 17-year-old Amy Fisher went to her married lover’s home, rang the doorbell and shot his wife in the head. The story became a tabloid news sensation, with Fisher dubbed “Long Island Lolita.” Her victim, Mary Jo Buttafuoco, survived her injuries but will always have the bullet lodged in her skull. In December 1992, a judge sentenced Fisher to five to 15 years in prison. At the sentencing, Mary Jo detailed the pain Fisher had caused her family. Fisher was released in 1999."

Source:Inside Edition

Happy Friday and because of that we're going to take a different course today and take a short break from the current affairs and history that this blog normally covers and instead talk about more important and pressing issues like tabloid true crime stories. LOL Or at least more entertaining stories like the Long Island love affair between Joey Buttafuoco and Amy Fisher from back in the early 1990s.

To answer Inside Edition's ( speaking of tabloids ) question about why Amy Fisher shot her ex-lover's Joey Buttafuoco wife Mary Jo: she was sort of a crazy, highly impressionable, lost in space teenage girl who wasn't even 18 yet when she shot Mrs. Buttafuoco, who believed that Joey even though he was married with kids and was happily married with kids and loved his kids, and was a successful small business owner in Long Island, New York, that he would give up all of that to be with her. Amy Fisher, who was still in high school when she met Joey and Joey was 36 at this point with everything else going for him in life that I already mentioned.

I'm not not a mindreader, ( obviously ) otherwise life would be way too interesting for me always knowing what others are thinking, but I was a teenager at one point even if my grasp of reality was a lot stronger than Amy Fisher's, but I have to imagine that Amy with her teenage and obsessed mind probably assumed that if Joey wouldn't leave his wife voluntarily, that maybe if she eliminated Mary Jo herself, then maybe Joey would take her back and they could be together again. And maybe she becomes the mother of his kids.

Amy sort of had this Marilyn Monroe delusion going on where she expected a man that she believed was in love with her would give up everything that he already has: beautiful wife, the kids, nice home, successful business, money, in order to be with her who wasn't even out of high school yet. But that's just my theory about this case.

David Hoffman: 'This Ordinary Man Didn't Get The Sexual Revolution'

Source:David Hoffman- I'm sure this man has a name, but I don't know who he is.

"My subscribers have been asking me to, on occasion, post a complete interview without edits. This is one. The person asking the questions is my co-executive producer on my television series on the 1960s. The interview was conducted in 1989 as part of 180 interviews we did for that series. My idea was to talk with ordinary people from all political and social stripes about their experiences of that time."

From David Hoffman

Not surprising that anyone who is older than the Silent Generation ( Americans born in the 1930s, generally ) and in some cases members of the Silent Generation didn't get the 1960s Sexual Revolution.

Pre-1963 or so, America was a Phyllis Schlafly, Beaver Cleaver, Ozzie and Harriet Utopia: "hi honey, "I'm home" wasn't just a popular 1950s sitcom phrase, but what most of America was about as far as relationships between American men and women: man worked and paid the bills: woman stayed home and raised their kids. Of course Americans were having sex pre-marriage back in the 1950s and even before that, but they didn't talk about that. They didn't live with each other pre-marriage. They didn't have kids pre-marriage. Americans tended not to talk about their sex lives in public.

Starting in the 1960s, America started changing dramatically because you had all of these Baby Boomers ( Americans born in the 1940s and 50s ) entering, graduating high school, entering college, and graduating college. These Americans were tired and bored with their parents and grandparents America and wanted to live their own lives. Listen to their own music, watch their own movies and TV, party with their own people and go to their own parties. And perhaps the most divisive aspect of the 1960s having to do with military service where you had all of these Baby Boomers who didn't feel the need to enter the military and didn't believe America should be involved in other countries civil wars. Which is what the divide about the Vietnam War was.

So of course if you came of age in the 1950s and you're weren't a Beatnik, ( 1950s Hippies ) you grew up in an America that looked almost like a different country than what America looked like by 1965 or so. It looked like two different large, developed countries where one America looks more like Saudi Arabia and the other America looks like a free society where everyone is essentially free to be themselves and live their own lives, to do their own thing and not feel the need to be like people who are older than them, just because that's how American life was before.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.