Wednesday, August 28, 2019

David Hoffman: '1960s Conservative Describes An America Many See Today'

Source:David Hoffman- Young American women in the 1960s
"Of course the speaker is the 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. I collected these speeches back then because I was developing ideas for my 6 part television series, Making Sense of the Sixties. 

Barry Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in that election. His conservative message did not resonate with the experiences most Americans were having back then. But when I re-examined this recently, much of what he is saying corresponds to what Republicans feel and what President Trump is expressing about America and what needs to change. 

The issues Goldwater raised include the American drift to the left and moral decay, crime, the morals of the young, political corruption, 1960s values, religious freedom, the state of the Supreme Court, and so much more. that resonates with how many Republicans feel and with President Tump's MAGA."

From David Hoffman

I agree with David Hoffman that what Senator Goldwater was talking about during this speech when he was running for President in 1964, resonates with what Donald Trump was saying back in 2016 and today as President. But to compare Barry Goldwater with Donald Trump or any actual Conservative ( like the Never-Trumper's ) with Donald Trump at least in an ideological sense, is not just an insult to Barry Goldwater, but to Conservatives in general. It would be like calling Pat Buchanan a Liberal, ( insult to all Liberals ) or Bernie Sanders a Libertarian, because he's liberal on social issues. ( An insult to all Libertarians )

The closest candidate at least at the presidential level from either the Republican Party or Democratic Party to Senator Barry Goldwater, would be former Representative Ron Paul. Except Goldwater, was a lot more hawkish on foreign policy and national security. But they were both very similar on economic policy, who hated deficits and debt, a big Federal Government, both believed in freedom of choice and personal freedom in general, free speech, etc.

What Donald Trump represents from an ideological and cultural level at the presidential level, is George Wallace. Who ran as an Independent for the Independence Party in 1968, but he was as Independent as its hot in Greenland or cold in Saudi Arabia. He was Neo-Confederate as Governor of Alabama and a Neo-Confederate as a presidential candidate. He was a Nationalist before that term became popular with the right-wing in America.

What George Wallace and Donald Trump represent, are people who woke up one day in the 1960s and suddenly realized it was no longer 1955.

Christian-Right 1960s complaints

"Why are all of these women working?"

"Why are African-Americans on our TV's and in our movies?" And they didn't say African-American back then.

"What do you mean homosexuality is no longer illegal? How come men and women who aren't married, living together?"

"Why are these young people swearing in public and in the movies: did they forget to go to church?"

"Why do all these young people have long hair: did every barbershop around suddenly close? What do you mean my son doesn't want to volunteer for the military and fight for his country?"

At some point in the 1960s, the Christian-Right woke up and realized that America was no longer their Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet utopia and realized that young people didn't want the same American Dream that they wanted and that not every American was originally from Britain or any other part of Europe and even from parts of Europe that Neo-Confederates don't like, Southern Europe being a great example. And decided to step up and fight back. First they backed Barry Goldwater, who wasn't with them on the social issues at least as far as having government outlaw a lot of activities that the Christian-Right disapproves of. And then backed George Wallace in 68, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and now Donald Trump. 

Dan Mitchell: ‘Bernie Sanders Humor’

Source:MEME- Bernie Sanders: “who’s going to pay for all of their free stuff?
Source:The New Democrat

“I’m getting worried that Senator Bernie Sanders is fading in the polls.

That doesn’t make me happy. I want Crazy Bernie to stay relevant.

Why? Because he’s an endless source of clever satire.

Previous editions of Bernie humor can be found here and here.

For today’s edition, let’s start with the fact that Bernie has used political office to become a millionaire, yet he doesn’t put his money where his mouth is (the federal government actually has a website for people who are foolish enough to pay extra tax).”

Read more from Dan Mitchell

Source:Inside Edition: 'Watch Jimmy Fallon's Perfect Impression of Bernie Sanders'- Bernie Sanders, is definitely one of a kind. And if we didn’t have one, he would probably create a new government program to create one. LOL
“Comedy has gone into overdrive after outsiders Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump each had sweeping victories in the New Hampshire primary. Jimmy Fallon unveiled a spot-on impression of Sanders on The Tonight Show on Wednesday night. He had his audience hysterical as he spoofed the Vermont Senator’s speech, joking: “I’m speaking tonight to claim victory in the New Hampshire primary over she who must not be named.” The audience went wild as the real Bernie Sanders made a surprise appearance.”

I truly believe that Bernie Sanders is one of the most if not most honest politicians who has ever lived. Which I know that’s like saying Yao Ming is the tallest man in China, or Toronto is the hottest city in Canada, the salad is the healthiest meal on the McDonald’s menu, or someone is the sanest person at the mental institution, hopefully you get the drift by now. ( If not, seek help ) Obviously there are not a lot of honest politicians. The common stereotype of a politician is that they’ll say whatever they need to say to help themselves at the given time, even if they don’t mean a word of it. But Bernie Sanders, is not just an honest politician he’s an honest man, so for that I just don’t respect the man, but actually like him for his candor and very quick sense of humor.

But here comes a big but: ( No, not that butt ) Bernie, comes off as a traveling salesman, or conman even, like used car salesman who promises people everything and tells them that it will be free and says he has all of this stuff to give you or Elizabeth Warren who has plans for problems that haven’t even been invented yet ( the only psychic to ever run for President ) and doesn’t give you the catch until he’s asked about it. “Senator Sanders, with these record deficits and debt: how are you going to pay for all of these free programs?” With Senator Sanders answer always be something to the affect: “well of course taxes are going to go up. I never said these programs are going to be free.”

Well, actually Bernie did, because the way Socialists tend to think is that if someone doesn’t have to pay for a service in the private market, because they’re getting it from government, that those services are free, because they’re not paying some business for them. What they always leave out is that taxes are actually money and charges that government gives its people for the services that they receive.

If you went to a bar and the bartender said: “every drink is on the house: now, who’s buying?” You would think the bartender is either joking, or perhaps drunk on the stuff that they’re supposed to be selling. That the bartender either had a few too many before they showed up for work, or while they were at work. Imagine a drunk bartender at a bar and he or she asks one of their customers: “what will you have?” With the customer replying: “I’ll have whatever you’re drinking, if there is anything left.” Bernie and his Socialist allies, come off as snake oil or used car salesmen ( or women. For you PC freaks ) as people that are selling things that are too good to be true, because they are too good to be true.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Big Think: Penn Jillette- 'On Libertarianism, Taxes, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Weed'

Source:Big Think- Comedian Penn Jillette, explaining his own libertarianism.
"Take a deep breath, you're in for a ride. Here is Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, taxes, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Gary Johnson, sex, drugs and Kurt Cobain. Jillette's latest book is "Presto!:  How I Made Over 100 Pounds Disappear and Other Magical Tales"

Watch the video at Big Think

Penn Jillette, is a Libertarian, because he doesn't believe he's smart enough to make decisions ( I'm guessing not including his own children ) and that no one else is qualified to make decisions for other people. And that other people aren't qualified to make other decisions for other people. I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty close.

He also said that the way he looks at his own libertarianism, is that he's Right on taxes and Left on sex. Basically saying that he's right-wing ( let's say ) on economic policy and very liberal on personal freedom. 

I as a Liberal ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) I'm also in complete agreement with Penn Jillette and the people that I at least would call mainstream Libertarians ( if there are such people ) when it comes to personal freedom and most economic policy issues.

I don't want government telling people who they can hire and fire. Who they can promote and demote. Give raises or salary cuts. I don't want taxes and regulations on private businesses and organizations should be so high, that it makes it almost impossible for them to stay in business, just because you as some collectivist ( Socialist or otherwise ) believes that you and big government are smart enough to know what's best for everyone else and that people are essentially too stupid to manage their own lives. 

And of course if you're very familiar with this blog you know don't just claim to be pro choice, because we support private choice on abortion and that gays should have the same freedom as straights, and perhaps marijuana, but we're 100% pro choice on everything. Short of someone hurting an innocent person with what they're doing.

If someone wants to smoke marijuana to the point that they're so high that they're see flying elephants flying over skyscrapers in Wichita, Kansas, ( you would have to be higher than a skyscraper to see that ) that's their business. Just don't expect to bail them out when they find themselves in jail, for getting into a bar fight because they thought the bartender grabbed their ass. And don't expect me to except: "the marijuana made me to it excuse" either.

If people want to gamble their life savings away at the casino, that's their business. Just don't expect taxpayers to bail them out when they're not not just broke, but out of a job, because they lost all of their money at the damn casino, when they were supposed to be working. If guys want to screw each other, wear dresses, makeup, speak with higher voices than their mothers and marry men, that's their business. Just don't force me to approve of what they're doing. If women want to bang each other, play professional football, be dykes on bikes, and speak with deeper voices than their fathers, wear crewcuts, that's their business. Just don't expect me to approve of it.

And I could go on to paying for sex, buying, making, and viewing adult films, going to strip joints, owning strip joints, running strip joints, and being paying customer at a strip joint, just as long as I  and no other taxpayer is forced to subsidize these personal choices, or bail people out when they make bad decisions. I don't drink alcohol, smoke anything, or use any other narcotic, but like Penn Jillette I don't believe I'm qualified to make those decisions for others. And I sure as hell know that government isn't qualified to make those decision for others as well.

To paraphrase Michael Douglas from The American President, well to paraphrase President Andrew Shepard: ( Michael Douglas's character in TAP ) America is a tough place and you have to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. And he was talking about free speech someone I''m also bit of a radical on, but you could apply that speech to personal freedom in general, because even though all of us are free to make our own decisions, so is everyone else that is around us. So you might personally approve of the way you're living, people around you might and vice-versa. But again, who is more qualified to make these decisions for us: the individual who knows themself the best, or government? How you answer that question is where you fall when it comes to your beliefs in individual freedom. 

Biographics: Hunter S. Thompson: 'Gonzo Extraordinaire'

Source:Biographics- Hunter S. Thompson: The Extraordinaire.
I guess I look at Hunter Thompson not as a political satirist or a comedian, or perhaps even a journalist, but as a satirist on American life who was so interested in America that he wanted to find out as much as he could and then make fun of it. I believe Hunter loved life, perhaps especially American life, but wanted to have a good time and has as much fun in life as possible and used humor in his writing and other outlets to express that.

You can watch the video here Biographics

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Where he goes through Las Vegas looking for the American dream. I believe he's someone who was consumed with information and finding out as much as possible about people and things that he was interested in.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail is where you see the political satiric side of Hunter Thompson. I mean how you not cover the George McGovern 1972 presidential campaign without a sense of humor, especially if you were a McGovernite who actually managed to stay sober during that entire campaign.

So perhaps just yourself, Hunter Thompson, and Senate McGovern himself who actually believed everything that he said during that campaign as the only sober people who had anything to do with that campaign. With the rest of the campaign being made up of people who were flown in from Hippie communes in California who really did believe that every single problem known to man and perhaps problems that hadn't even been invented yet, could be solved if you just put government in charge of it.

I love America and love practically everything about America ( except for the ignorant fringes in America and the crazy people ) but when you have the political system that we do with voters who complain about corruption in politics and corrupt politicians, while at the same time you they vote for and reelect those same politicians, like people who claim to hate fast food, even though that's all they eat it, you have to be able live life in America with a sense of humor and be able to laugh about it. Otherwise you might as well just become an alcoholic or check yourself into a mental institution, because you'll go crazy. America was the perfect country for Hunter Thompson and it's a great thing that we had him. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, August 26, 2019

The Film Archives: Politics & Prose- Daniel Oppenheimer: 'Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century'

Source:Google- Author Daniel Oppenheimer, at Politics and Prose in Washington: talking about his book "Exit Right" in 2016.
"A provocative, intimate look at the evolution of America's political soul through the lives of six political figures from Whittaker Chambers to Christopher Hitchens who abandoned the left and joined the right. In Exit Right Daniel Oppenheimer tells the stories of six major political figures whose journeys away from the left reshaped the contours of American politics in the twentieth century. By going deep into the minds of six apostates, Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens, Oppenheimer offers an unusually intimate history of the American left, and the right's reaction.

Daniel Oppenheimer is a writer and filmmaker whose articles and videos have been featured in the New York Times, the Atlantic, Tablet Magazine, and He has an MFA in nonfiction writing from Columbia University and is a director of strategic communications at the University of Texas at Austin."

From Odyssey Books

Source:Odyssey Books- Daniel Oppenheimer: author of Exit Right 
Author Daniel Oppenheimer, at Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington in 2016, talking about book 'Exit Right: "The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century. 

From The Film Archives

What these political figures that Daniel Oppenheimer talks about in his book Exit Right, including people like Ronald Reagan, would argue is that they didn't leave the Left or the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left them.

Pre-late 1960s or so even the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party including people like Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, ( if you want to call JFK a Progressive, instead of a Liberal ) were anti-Communists and even anti-Socialists. Wanted nothing to do with socialism and communism as ideologies and movements. But believed in things like the right to organize, right to assemble, right to privacy, free speech, a public safety net for people who really needed it, President Lyndon Johnson with the civil rights laws that President John F. Kennedy fully backed before he was assassinated in November of 1963.

Back up until the late 1960s or so being everyone was against Communists and Socialists . Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were completely against communism and at least most aspects of socialism. Including the Progressives and Progressive Democrats who did believe in those key progressive social and economic values that I mentioned before, but didn't want government in charge of everything and didn't want property rights to disappear and put government completely in charge. Including Ronald Reagan who in the 1940s was still an actor and ran the Actors Guild in Hollywood. Including Progressives and even Progressive Democrats.

If you want to know why Progressives and Liberals get stereotyped as Socialists and even Communists, Hippies who seem to hate America and what America is supposed to stand for, and even hate American capitalism, and look at everyone who is supposed to be part of the establishment as a pig and bigot, look at the late 1960s with the rise of the Baby Boomers in America and the New-Left ( of Socialists and Communists ) that they got behind. That's also where you'll see a lot of Progressive Democrats back then leave the Democratic Party and either become Right-Progressive Republicans and be part of the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, or become Conservative Republicans like Ronald Reagan.

The 1960s, especially with the Vietnam War and the rise of the New-Left in the Democratic Party with all of these hippie-radicals becoming so politically active in American politics, is where tyou see the Dixiecrats ( Neo-Confederate Democrats ) becoming Republicans. As well as Center-Right Progressive Democrats like Ronald Reagan and others also leaving the Democratic Party and becoming Republicans. In Reagan's case, a Center-Right Conservative Republican. Which is how America goes from being an almost one-party democratic country with the Democrats almost completely in charge, to a strong two-party system where the Republican Party becomes very competitive nationally again. 

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.

"In his new book, The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, the U.C. Irvine cognitive scientist Dr. Donald Hoffman challenges the leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality. How can it be possible that the world we see is not objective reality? And how can our senses be useful if they are not communicating the truth? Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally. His evolutionary model contends that natural selection has favored perception that hides the truth and guides us toward useful action, shaping our senses to keep us alive and reproducing. We observe a speeding car and do not walk in front of it; we see mold growing on bread and do not eat it. These impressions, though, are not objective reality. Just like a file icon on a desktop screen is a useful symbol rather than a genuine representation of what a computer file looks like, the objects we see every day are merely icons, allowing us to navigate the world safely and with ease. The real-world implications for this discovery are huge, even dismantling the very notion that spacetime is objective reality. The Case Against Reality dares us to question everything we thought we knew about the world we see.

In this conversation, Hoffman and Shermer get deep into the weeds of:

• the nature of reality (ontology)
• how we know anything about reality (epistemology)
• the possibility that we’re living in a simulation
• the possibility that we’re just a brain in a vat
• the problem of other minds (that I’m the only sentient conscious being while everyone else is a zombie)
• the hard problem of consciousness
• what it means to ask “what’s it like to be a bat?”
• does the moon exist if there are no conscious sentient beings anywhere in the universe?
• is spacetime doomed?
• quantum physics and consciousness
• the microtubule theory of consciousness
• the global workspace theory of consciousness, and
• how Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception differs from Jordan Peterson’s Archetypal Theory of Truth (Shermer’s label for Peterson’s evolutionary theory of truth).

This dialogue was recorded on April 8, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California." 

From Skeptic Magazine

I'm not a scientist ( obviously. What was your first clue? ) so I'm not qualified to get into one's brain as far as why they do certain things, especially when they're obviously wrong and go against their own personal interest, as well as the interests of the people around them. But I'm an observer of people and as a man myself I am qualified to speak for myself as far as why people do certain things,  including things that go against their own personal interests and why people even feel the need to try to escape reality and reason when making certain decisions. 

I'm not an Atheist and I'm not a Randian ( term named after author Ayn Rand ) but as an Agnostic and I believe even as a Liberal I believe in reason and reality and don't believe in the faith for the most part. Perhaps the least romantic person you've ever met ( assuming you've never met Ayn Rand ) and I believe that you always should go with reason and reality, over how you want things and people to be. I also don't drink alcohol and or use any other narcotics, so I'm always forced to live in reality and see things they way they are, at least to my best ability, because I'm don't have that escape to take me away from the way things really are, for good and bad. I'm not going to have  a bad day and then hit a bar to get wasted to try to get that day or whatever happened that day out of my mind.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything and I'm the best at anything including personal decision-making. I'm just saying reality and reason are my approach to how I choose to look at the world and then try to make the best decisions that I can based on what I'm personally seeing and hearing in life. Based not on how I want people, things, or places to be, but how they are based on the best available facts and evidence.

But for too many Americans reality is not good enough for them to the point that they just don't try to change it for them, but start seeing and hearing things that simply aren't there to make themselves feel better. The example I gave about not going to the bar when I'm having a bad time to get wasted and escape from my negative reality, that's not what a lot of Americans do and perhaps is a reason for alcoholism that people need to get wasted and feel better when they're going through tough times and see alcohol as their personal escape, regardless of the negative consequences that come from abusing alcohol.

For intelligent, sober, responsible, sane people, reality is all we need to do well in life: "these are the facts on the ground ( for good and bad ) and this is what can be done about it. And this is how we can make the best of it." Is how these people look at the world to make the world the best that they can make it for themselves.

The alcoholic, the celebrity culture crazed person who might not even be popular or even well-known in their own neighborhood, let alone the rest of the country, for them reality is not good enough. So they see things that simply aren't there, think more of themselves than they deserve too, and perhaps especially the alcoholic make a lot of bad decisions that come with really bad consequences for them and people around them. Because the real-world is not good enough for them and have mentally escaped reality.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

TED: Joseph G. Levitt- 'How Craving Attention Makes You Less Creative'

Source:TED- Actor Joseph G. Levitt, speaking at a TED conference
"Joseph Gordon-Levitt has gotten more than his fair share of attention from his acting career. But as social media exploded over the past decade, he got addicted like the rest of us -- trying to gain followers and likes only to be left feeling inadequate and less creative. In a refreshingly honest talk, he explores how the attention-driven model of big tech companies impacts our creativity -- and shares a more powerful feeling than getting attention: paying attention."

Joseph G. Levitt speaking at a TED

Source:Autumn Asphodel:'-  Great material for anyone who needs to sleep. but who simply can't. 
"Everyone needs attention. When they don't get the attention they deserve, such as being neglected, abandoned, abused, or left feeling unworthy or unloved, they will subconsciously make up for that by seeking attention and sympathy to fill that void. Attention seeking can also be a subconscious cry for help. But, there are ways of recognizing the behavior and getting control of it."

What actor Jospeh Gordon Levitt is talking about here sounds like a book that British author Caitlin Moran wrote about people who try to be famous just to be famous. Who do and say outrageous things just to be famous. The literal title of her book is: "How to be Famous." Not saying that Joe Levitt read Caitlin Moran's book and decided to give a speech about this, but they're basically talking about the same thing: people who are addicted to fame, especially people who aren't already famous. Which s an issue that we've always had in this country ever since the creation of Hollywood, but has exploded in the last 10-20 years thanks to the internet. As well as the rise in popularity of tabloid news shows .and what's called reality TV. 

I wrote a piece for this blog about Caitlin Moran's book which you can see in the BookTV section of this blog. And the argument that I made 14 months ago, is the same argument that I'm going to make here: people need to know who they are and what they're good at. And if they're lucky or just very skillful and intelligent, perhaps they're not addicted to their phone or coffee or what's called reality TV and celebrity culture, they'll find something that they both love doing and are really good at, because they have the talent for it and they love what they do for a living. Whether it's writing, acting, teaching, law enforcement, whatever it might be that they're good at in life, that supports their lifestyles, and they love doing.

My next point is about positive creativity versus negative creativity

There are cooks who are very creative in how they prepare their meals that a lot of people love. There are doctors who are very creative in how they deliver quality, affordable, health care. There are great teachers who are very creative in how they teach their students. And I could go on indefinitely to the point that insomniacs might finally get their first sleep in weeks, months or years.

And then there are serial murders who are very creative in how they murder their victims: Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and unfortunately I could go on there as well. And then we have reality TV and celebrity addicts, who aren't as dangerous ( even with their smartphones and computers ) but in too many cases aren't as smart either, whose only goal in life is to be famous and become the next OMG awesome celebrity or whatever.

People who want to be the next Paris Hilton ( or whoever the most popular Real Housewives star is ) who are famous for simply being famous and doing and saying outrageous things. And the more outrageous they are and the more trouble that they get in, the more popular they are, the more followers they have on Twitter and Instagram, or whatever their social media network of choice happens to be. How many times have Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan been arrested and then also look at how popular they are.

My next to last point goes back to one of my first points and hopefully you don't get any whiplash here: if your sole purpose in life is to be famous and popular, you're going to end up doing and saying a lot of stupid things in life. And that new celebrity might say: "I might be doing 10 years in prison, but I could get out in 5. And besides, look at all of the new followers that I'll have when I get out. And I''lll even get a new book deal out of it." Which would be another example of negative creativity, which would be people who don't care about getting in trouble, just as long as it comes from fame and they can make a lot of money off of it.

Or your goal in life could be just to be very successful, even to the point you never spend a single day in jail. Which might sound way too hard to believe for too many people and you decide that you're going to be the best that you can be at whatever you do ( just as long as it's legal, or then jail time will definitely be involved ) and then let the fame and money take care of it themselves, based on how talented, intelligent, and successful you are. Which would be my approach. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: 'Communism Humor'

Source:Communist Party USA?- It’s a party, except you’re not allowed to leave. LOL
Source:The New Democrat

“Time to augment our growing collection of satire about the twin horrors of socialism and communism.

Today, we’ll concentrate on the latter form of totalitarianism and mock Marxism.”

Read more from Dan Mitchell

Source:Addman 619: Rodney Dangerfield- Yakov Smiroff: ‘Very Funny’Yakov Smiroff, might be Rodney Dangerfield’s best friend when it comes to comedy.
If there is anyone in the world who should have a good idea what communism and socialism in general is like and how Communists and Socialists think, and is qualified to make fun of Communists and communism, it’s Jewish-Russian-American comedian Yakov Smiroff.

I could just close this piece out with Yakov Smiroff, but since I’m a blogger I sort of have a duty to weigh in on what I’m writing about here. So if that offends anyone, I apologize ( not really ) but you have like a million of other blog sites you could look at instead.

I guess my big joke about Communists and communism: when I think of party’s I think of get togethers where people get together at one of their friend’s homes or perhaps at a bar, restaurant, or club and they eat, have a good time, dance, etc, but they get to go home at the end of the party. ( Hopefully alive, conscience, and perhaps even sober )

But at a Communist Party, once you’re in, you’re all in ( to use a pop culture catch phrase ) and there’s no leaving without permission from the people who invited you. And to get that permission, you have to fill out an Everest mountain of paperwork. And you better have nothing else to do  for the next ten years ( like being forced to work at a communist work camp ) because that’s how long it will take you to finish all of that paperwork, just to apply to the Communist Party, about leaving their party.

Another way to make fun of Communists and communism is to look at like you would look at prisons. Except prisons are harder to make fun of because most of the people there are actually guilty. ( Despite what Socialists on their longest marijuana highs think ) But at a communist prison like North Korea for example, the only thing that the people there are guilty of , is wanting to leave the party ( meaning the country ) or at the very least have this dying, selfish need to want to actually make their own decisions in life. Who have the gaul and arrogance to want to actually control their own lives. And want access to information that’s not provided to them by the state.

Today’s Socialists like to say that there is no such thing as a Communist state and that these so-called communist states like the former Soviet Union, ( now Russian Federation ) People’s Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, etc aren’t really communist states, but just totalitarian states. But what they always fail to mention or do is to define what communism actually is, how is it different from social democracy or democratic socialism. So if communism is not just total state-control of society, then what is it?

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Tom Woods: 'Ep. 1470 Vince Vaughn on Hollywood, Libertarianism, and American Politics'

Source:Tom Woods- interviewing Libertarian entertainer Vince Vaughn
"Vince Vaughn has scores of Hollywood films to his credit -- from The Lost World: Jurassic Park to Hacksaw Ridge and many in between -- and has been a Ron Paul supporter since the 2008 presidential campaign. He and Tom discuss Hollywood, libertarianism, and American politics.  Show notes for Ep. 1470"

From Tom Woods

Source:Ora-TV- "Ora-TV Off The Grid: Vince Vaughn the Libertarian 
When I think of politics in Hollywood, I guess I put Hollywood into 4 different political factions.

The so-called Hollywood-Leftists

Who are privately as socialist as Ron Paul, or as Ronald Reagan was Communist, Bernie Sanders is an objectivist Ayn Rand Libertarian, as socialist as Ann Coulter is feminist, etc. That even though publicly that back left-wing political candidates and politicians ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) and claim to hate Corporate America ( even though they work for it and even own their own corporations ) that as left-wing and socialist as they claim to be, they generally don't believe anything that they're actually saying publicly.

Because they're part of the group that they claim to be against: which are rich people and even worst from a left-wing socialist point of view, what they call rich white people. Not calling them liars, ( necessarily ) but you have to remember that they are actors who make they're livings acting and entertaining people. The Susan Sarandon's, Jayne Fonda's, Danny Glover's Matt Damon's, Robert Redford's and others are part of this Hollywood group.

Hollywood Democrats

This is sort of the Billy Baldwin group in Hollywood. People who are loyal Democrats and who get behind the best Democrat that can beat the Republican that they're facing. Politically, they're probably Center-Left Progressives and Classical Liberals, but they're mainly honest, partisan Democrats who back Democrats, in order to beat the Republican Party.

Hollywood Conservative-Libertarians

I guess this would be comedian Vince Vaughn's group, that Clint Eastwood is also part of. They love working in America, they love making a great living in America, they love being wealthy, they love the Hollywood lifestyle. And they don't want left-wing or Far-Right politicians coming into power in America and telling them what they can and can't do.

Hollywood Conservatives

John Wayne, famous member of this Hollywood faction, Ronald Reagan post-Hollywood became a member of this group, Bob Hope, and plenty of other entertainers from the past. Jon Voight would be a big part of this group today. They're basically just Center-Right loyal Republicans who want to beat Democrats and keep their taxes and regulations down.

Hollywood, gets stereotyped as left-wing and even socialist, but this is Hollywood we're talking about which is the entertainment capital of America at least and they're in the business of entertainment ( naturally ) and to make money. And if Hollywood was anywhere near as socialist or even socialist at all as they get stereotyped, they would be out of business. Or at the very least struggling to stay in business and running fundraisers to stay in business. So when a member of Hollywood takes any political position, before you even consider taking them seriously about anything, you have to remember that they are professional entertainers first and perhaps even last.  

New York Magazine: Ed Kilgore: 'George McGovern Didn’t Lose in 1972 by Going Too Far Left. Neither Will 2020 Democrats'

Source:New York Magazine- George McGovern For President in 1972, was President Richard Nixon's early Christmas gift. And the Democratic Party's vacation in Hell.
"One of the most persistent arguments surrounding the 2020 presidential contest is that Democrats are heading “off the deep end” on a left-wing ideological bender that will mean disaster in the general election. The warning is very often associated with the specter of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, who lost 49 states four years after Hubert Humphrey lost by an eyelash and four years before Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The obsession with the idea that 1972 may repeat itself is a bipartisan phenomenon. Some McGovern Redux takes are from conservatives who are simply promoting the perennial claim that Democrats have become an anti-American cabal of baby-killing hippie socialists with a fresh urgency given the current extremism of the GOP. And some of these takes are (and have been for many years) from self-styled moderate Democrats grinding axes against self-consciously progressive aspirants to the presidential nomination."

Read more at New York Magazine

George McGovern's 1972 political platform from Wikipedia

"In the 1972 election, McGovern ran on a platform that advocated withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war[15] and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country,[16] an anti-war platform that was anticipated by McGovern's sponsorship of the 1970 McGovern-Hatfield amendment that sought to end U.S. participation in the war by Congressional action. However, during a meeting with Democratic Governors conference, Nevada Governor Mike O'Callaghan asked McGovern what he would do if the North Vietnamese refused to release American POW's after a withdrawal. McGovern responded, "Under such circumstances, we'd have to take action," although he did not say what action.[17]

"McGovern's platform also included an across-the-board, 37% reduction in defense spending over three years;[18] and a "demogrant" program that would replace the personal income tax exemption with a $1,000 tax credit as a minimum-income floor for every citizen in America,[19] to replace the welfare bureaucracy and complicated maze of existing public-assistance programs. Its concept was similar to the negative income tax long advocated by economist Milton Friedman, and by the Nixon administration in the form of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Family Assistance Plan, which called for a minimum family grant of $1,600 per year, later raised to $2,400. The personal income tax exemption later became $1,000 under President Reagan. (As Senator, McGovern had previously sponsored a bill, submitted by the National Welfare Rights Organization, for $6,500 guaranteed minimum income per year to families, based on need.)[20] In addition, McGovern supported ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment."

Source:The Big Picture'- Maybe Thom Hartmann, really is Commie, since he works for President Vladimir Putin. LOL
From Thom Hartmann

"A lot of Hillary's supporters say they like Bernie Sanders - but that they're afraid that Sanders might lose the general in a landslide. But it's not 1972 - and Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern."

I agree with Ed Kilgore on one thing: Senator George McGovern wasn't as Far-Left as people believed. Which is like saying that Pat Buchanan, isn't as Far-Right as people might think. Or it's not as hot in Arizona in the summer as some people might think. It's only 120 degrees in the summer, instead 130 and besides: it's a dry heat and there's no humidity. That's still very hot compared with most of the rest of the country that's dealing with temperatures in the 80s and 90s, 70s in the Northwest and even 60s because of all their damn rain. And Pat Buchanan is still pretty Far-Right, especially since now he's arguing that maybe President Vladimir Putin is right about liberal democracy dying.

Senator George McGovern before being elected to Congress, served as a fighter pilot during World War II. And then ran the food program that served hungry people in the Kennedy Administration. Growing up in South Dakota he was devoutly religious and remained that way his whole life. He wasn't some hippie pacifist Socialist that believed that America was the real evil empire and that Fidel Castro and Russia were the good guys. He knew that they were bad people that had to be dealt with.

But when you give speeches on the Senate floor arguing that American soldiers were the real war criminals during the Vietnam War and you have a new social program and tax increase to solve all of Americans problems for them and you continually bash American businesses that hire all of these American voters that depend on these companies for their jobs and lifestyles, that puts you on the Far-Left in America.

Especially in 1972 with the emergence of the New-Left in America ( Socialists and Communists, not Liberals ) in the late 1960s and early 70s. And then you have these group of middle-American voters ( that the Far-Left likes to just put down as blue-collar, small town white people ) who represent a large chunk of the American electorate, who are not wealthy, who work hard to make a good living in America and if anything think that they're already overtaxed and that government is already trying to do too much for them, who are people who are just looking for an opportunity to make more money and be successful, who are proud of the American military and think that America is a great country, you're going to look extreme to these voters. Whether you're George McGovern in 1972, or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in 2019-20.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Far-Leftists ( or Democratic Socialists ) and their supporters will argue that America has changed and that minorities are now a bigger part of the American electorate and you now even have young Caucasian-American voters who aren't afraid of socialism and Socialists and even like Socialists and socialism, but here's the problem with that argument: minorities whether they're African-American, Latino, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Jewish., whatever racial or ethnic background, they're not monolithic as voters.

None of these racial and ethnic groups are monolithic as voters. Just because you're a minority doesn't mean you're left-wing and all Caucasians are right-wing. Not even all middle age and older Caucasian voters are on the Right. Caucasian voters regardless of ethnicity aren't monolithic as voters either. And the other problem that left-wing in the Democratic Party has is that the group of voters that they're targeting are the least reliable as far as people who go to the polls and who vote. Young voters of all ethnic racial backgrounds.

For a Democrat to win the presidency in 2020, they still have to be able to win big states in the Midwest and probably even Florida in the South, if they lose Ohio again. You can't run a Democratic presidential campaign in 2020 thinking you only need women regardless of race, young voters regardless of race, minorities. And you can't win the minority vote and get new minority voters to the polls, by thinking they're automatically going to show up and vote for you, because of President Donald Trump. You have to reach out to them and get them to the polls yourself and appeal to them for their votes.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, August 19, 2019

The Film Archives: Douglas Charles: 'J. Edgar Hoover's War on Gays'

Source:The Film Archives- No, J. Edgar Hoover's War on Gays, didn't come from The Onion.
J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI, and the “Sex Deviates” Program – NOTCHES"

From The Film Archives 

“The FBI is the world’s most famous law enforcement agency and also one of the world’s most mysterious organizations. Only the few who were part of J. Edgar Hoover’s inner circle know the truths of five decades of his authoritarian rule. In this gripping personal account, Deke DeLoach, who was privy to Hoover’s thoughts and actions during the FBI’s most tumultuous years, tells his insider story.”

Source:Amazon- J. Edgar Hoover: A Queen's War on Queens, would also be a good title for this book. 
From Amazon

Not sure if a satirical approach, or a more serious approach about FBI Director Edgar Hoover's apparent warrant war on homosexuality is the right approach here. Because he was a total hypocrite when it came to homosexuality being not just a closeted gay man himself as someone who had a long-term affair with one of his assistants, but apparently he was a closeted queen ( feminine gay man ) as well. You could really rip Hoover on this, or take a more serious approach.

Edgar Hoover's public anti-homosexuality, reminds me of the so-called Christian-Conservative politician or pastor who secretly has affairs with either his male staffers, or juvenile males. Representative Mark Foley from back in the mid-2000s who was an anti-gay in public, but in his private life had an affair with one of his Congressional staffers. The whole Catholic Church scandal from the early 2000s where you had Priests who were molesting children, including boys, would be another example. Catholics, or at least so-called Conservative-Catholics tend to view homosexuality as a sin.

I mean you really could have fun with Edgar Hoover on this, because in public he was claiming to be a champion of traditional American values, despite all his attacks on the U.S. Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and perhaps other amendments with all the unwarranted wiretaps and unwarranted private information that he collected on private American citizens and not just civil rights leader Dr. Martin L. King. But other than all of these constitutional violations that he committed as a Federal Government official, I guess he would be considered to be a champion of American traditional values, the U.S. Constitution, and individual freedom.

Well, according to the Far-Right Hoover believed in these so-called American values. But we also happen to be talking about a group of American that also believes in UFO's and other conspiracy theories. So take their word for only what it's worth. Even though in private life, Hoover didn't believe in any of these so-called traditional American values, especially these so-called Christian family values ( being a gay man ) and he didn't believe in the U.S. Constitution or individual freedom. He just wanted the Far-Right to believe he believed in those things.

So in public life FBI Director Edgar Hoover ( did anyone have the balls to call Edgar Hoover, Ed? ) was a champion of traditional American values and morality. But in private life, Hoover was the Queen of Queens, except he lived in Washington. And to be frank: spoke with such a high voice that you might have thought he was just kicked in the balls by a horse and somehow lived to tell and talk about it.

So yeah, Edgar Hoover was dictatorial, authoritarian leader of the largest and most powerful law enforcement agency not just in America, but in the world. And of course deserves great criticism to be be put down for that and should've been put in jail for all of his crimes against Americans. But if you can't see the humor in this story and in his life, I suggest that you go look for a sense of humor and then claim it as your own and use it.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

ATHENAISM: 'Why Is John F. Kennedy so Popular?'

Source:ATHENAISM- Depends on who you ask for JFK's popularity.
"John F. Kennedy is one of the most popular US presidents. Was he as good as people remember him being? What exactly is it that makes him so popular?"


Source:Caleb and Linda Pirtle- John F. Kennedy: I believe in 1960, when he was running for President. But I don't know for sure.
Why is John F. Kennedy so popular? It depends on who you ask and who you're talking about.

As a Classical Liberal ( a real Liberal ) myself I like JFK and consider him to be one of my political heroes, because of his politics and policies. You're talking about a Democrat who was not just an anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian, and an anti-collectivist all together. Who actually believed in economic opportunity, individual freedom, personal responsibility, like all real Liberals that liberty is not just worth defending, but is something that has to be defended.

JFK believed in equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, things that Democrats apparently don't believe in today ( for the most part ) with few exceptions. President Barack Obama, being one of the last of those Democrats despite his right-wing Tea Party stereotypes that President Obama was actually a Socialist.

But as I mentioned last week on this blog about JFK's rules for success, he wasn't just a brilliant man, but a man ( at least as far as how he spoke ) was full of such brilliant commonsense. Brilliant commonsense probably sounds like a great economy car: how great can an economy car be, otherwise it wouldn't be an economy car, but he's so quotable because he said things that sound brilliant at first, but then when you think about it they're really just commonsense that too many people had simply forgot about.

JFK's peace speech where he's talking about the shared human values between America and Russia and how it was in both superpowers best interests to cooperate for the good of the planet and our people's. He's someone that if you gave speeches for a living and tried to help people improve their own lives with your advice, would want to use JFK by quoting him.

So that's why I like him so much, but JFK's popularity of course is bipartisan and perhaps even nonpartisan, otherwise he wouldn't have an 83% approval rating or whatever the current figure is. Why do Conservatives like him? Why do Socialists ( who call themselves Progressives or Liberals ) like him? Why do even Libertarians like him? And finally, but certainly least: why is Hollywood if not in love with the man ( women and men ) why do they love him?

Conservatives like John F. Kennedy, because he was an anti-Communist, who really didn't like socialism in any form. He believed in economic freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which is why he pushed for what was certainly back in 1962 a very large across the board tax cut. He believed in a strong defense and that liberty was worth defending.

JFK, believed in things that today would look very conservative, especially with socialism being so popular at least with young Democrats today, but are actually very liberal ( both in a classic and real sense ) but look conservative, again compared with the modern Democratic Party. Back then Liberals were supposed to believe in these things and not sound and believe like Socialists. And Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) still believe in these things today.

Why do let's just call them what they are Socialists, who now see Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, Che Guevara, and other leftists as their heroes: why do they admire JFK?

President John Kennedy, wanted to expand the safety net in America and create new social insurance programs for people who struggle to survive economically in America. Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Federal Aide for Education, because he was a Progressive ( not Socialist ) who believed that government, including the Federal Government could be used to improve the lives of struggling Americans.

But unlike let's say Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders he didn't think these programs should be universal and that the Federal Government should replace private employers as the source for how Americans get their what most of us call employee benefits: health insurance, paid leave, childcare, life insurance, pension, education, etc. And JFK also talked about the need for peace a lot.

Libertarians, similar to Conservatives like JFK for his beliefs in lower taxation and individual freedom all together. Jack Kennedy, didn't see the role of government especially the Federal Government to manage and run the lives of free Americans.

And finally, but certainly least why is Hollywood still in love with John F. Kennedy? If you're familiar with Hollywood, you know that it's not just the entertainment capital of America ( if not world ) but they're also the capital of pop culture and faddism.

If it's considered cool, it's probably because some Hollywood celebrity either started it or got behind it. And because of their faddism and addiction to popularity and hipsterism, Hollywood always feels the need to be popular and cool. They don't love the man because of his policies for the most part, even though they will talk about his policy accomplishments.

Hollywood loves JFK because he was cool and see him as an honorary member of their Hollywood club. He had friends in Hollywood and they even planned his 45th birthday party in 1962. We're a big part of the production of his 1961 inauguration. Hollywood has this dying need to be seen with the in-crowd and be associated with anything that's cool in America.

If fascism, Islamism, and Christian-Nationalism ever became popular in America, at least with young people, Hollywood would be promoting those philosophies with their movies and other productions.  Which is also why Socialists love JFK, because Socialists tend to be hipsters and follow the cool people as well. Which is why Hollywood claims to love Socialists and socialism as well, because socialism is popular with young people.

To have an 83% approval rating, you either have to be God in a very religious country where even young adults are very religious, or you have to be leading a country that's just been under attack and you're the one who successfully led the country through that crisis and came out stronger, like President Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Or you have to be a politician who is so popular, because you're able to connect with so many people on so many different levels. Which is why John F. Kennedy is still so popular in America.

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

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

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

George Carlin: The Death Penalty (1996)

Source:HBO- George Carlin: come and get it! 
"George Carlin talks about the death penalty, i didn't see this one up so i thought i might upload it ;] If you like George Carlin, you might want to check out Bill Hicks as well.

Taken from his 'Back in Town' special in 1996

This video belongs to HBO and is used under fair use law."

From HBO

So let see if I can't get  this straight: ( because it would be pointless for me to try to get it gay. LOL ) George Carlin, is in favor of the death penalty for bankers who launder money to drug dealers, but the drug dealers would be off the hook ( so to speak ) just as long as the drug dealers are killing each other. So it's OK if drug dealers sell their junk ( to keep it clean ) to our children and everyone else who wants to buy it, just as long as they kill themselves as well.

OK, that's an interesting take, but perhaps just as interesting as the politician who claims you can cut taxes deeply, increase government spending dramatically and that will balance the budget. Sounds like thinking  by people who are on marijuana highs and who perhaps got their marijuana from the same drug dealers who George Carlin wants to spare from the death penalty.

Or the other politician who promises the taxpayers a, b, and c, and perhaps the rest of the alphabet and that none of those programs will cost them everything. And at the same time they're also going to cut their taxes and balance the budget as well. No offense to George: but his death penalty argument sounds like it came from a politician.

I have an alternative: if we're going to have a death penalty at all, it will just be for the assholes. I know what you're thinking: America is full of assholes and there's not enough electricity, poison or ammo to execute every asshole in America. But hear me out: we use the death penalty primarily for the assholes who hurt innocent people simply because they don't like their race, ethnicity, complexion, religion, sexuality, hair color, complexion, shoes, money, etc. And even if with all the hate crimes in America, we're still talking about small percentage of the country. And we can even save the taxpayers some money here by giving them guns and telling them that they're just water guns and let them execute themselves.

This is probably not an argument from anyone who is ever going to get elected to anything ( without Russia's help ) anytime soon, but doesn't mean it's not worth considering. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: 'Socialism Humor'

Source:International Liberty- Apparently you're not allowed to make fun of Socialists, unless everyone can afford to get the joke. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

“Given the misery that it has inflicted on the world, it’s just about impossible to think of socialism as a gift.

However, when I want new material for my humor collection, I think of socialism as the gift that keeps on giving. The ideology is such a failure that it creates a target-rich environment for satire.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell's Piece piece

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert: 'Democratic Socialist Ideas Are Mainstream'- I’ll give Bernie credit for one thing: he believes what he says.
 “Senator Sanders shrugs off Colbert’s suggestion that the word “socialist” taints progressive ideas like universal healthcare and tuition-free college.”

To make fun of Socialists and socialism is pretty easy: you imagine a bunch of people, especially college age people and people just outside of college, as well as 1960s hippies who still think they’re cool, because even though they now have gray hair, they have goatees or beards, as well as long hair ( because no barber in their right mind will cut their hair for free, just because some Socialist believes that all hair cuts should be free ) who promise the world to everyone. And of course there are young women and aging female hippies in this clan as well. And they claim that there isn’t any problem that government can’t solve for them. Well, at least until they run out of someone else’s money, or no other country will lend money to them. ( To paraphrase former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher )

These young and older Socialists go around the country bashing what they see as an evil, immoral, and racist economic system ( that sane, intelligent just know as American capitalism ) with their designer clothes, smartphones. And when they’re not bashing American capitalism, they’re rallying against Halloween or Thanksgiving, or protesting against free speech.

They go around the country bashing an economic system, that produced their designer clothes, Che Guevara t-shirts, smartphones and their other favorite devices, that they’re all addicted too. Over caffeinated and addicted to coffee, because they spend too much of their free time at coffee houses.

Bashing an economic system that produces everything that they love in life, because a 70 plus year old man, with a Brooklyn-Jewish accent says that all of these things in life like college and health care can be free. Without explaining one important catch: just as long as there is always someone around who will pay for all of this so-called free stuff. Or there is some third-world authoritarian regime that will lend us the money to pay for the so-called free stuff, that their own citizens won’t pay for, because they believe they shouldn’t have to pay for services that they receive.

See, making fun of Socialists and socialism is very easy: just imagine young people who are overly romantic and idealist, who simply don’t have enough experience in life yet to understand economics, as well as government and politics, because they don’t have that real world experience yet. As well as being the latest victims of the American education system. Or perhaps they were too busy texting their classmates in class and trying to figure out what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast in Malibu and what shoes she was wearing with her new bag, to actually learn about economics, as well as government and politics.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

MGM: The Big Knife (1955) Starring Jack Palance & Ida Lupino

Source:Berigan Traylor- From Robert Aldrich
"In this film version of Clifford Odets' play, Jack Palance plays big-time movie star Charlie Castle, who refuses to sign a binding, $3000 per week contract with mogul Rod Steiger. Steiger tries to blackmail Palance into re-signing by revealing that Palance was behind the wheel during a hit-and-run accident."

From Rotten Tomatoes

"The original trailer in high definition of the big knife directed by Robert Aldrich and starring Jack Palance, Ida Lupino, Wendell Corey, Jean Hagen and Rod Steiger."

From HD Retro Trailers

Source:HD Retro Trailers- Jack Palance and Shelley Winters 
I saw this movie last night ( the TCM version with Ben Mankiewicz ) in preparation for this post ( to give you and idea what we do for our readers at this blog ) and this movie was already one of my favorite movies going in, even though it had three years since I scene it last and it's not just one of my favorite movies now, but I love the movie even more.

Source:Encourage- Jack Palance and Shelley Winters 
Words like great and perfection ( or if you prefer, awesome ) get thrown around a lot and overused a lot, but when I think of great or even perfect movie I think of movies like this. Think about it: great cast when you're talking about Jack Palance one of the best Hollywood toughmen ever, as well as someone with a real dramatic flare and quick wit. Ida Lupino, not just one of the best actresses of the World War II generation regardless of genre, but one of the best ever and a helluva of a director and one of the first successful female directors ever. Hollywood Hall of Famers like Shelley Winters, and Jean Hagen, playing supportive roles. You're talking about an all-star team here.

If Jack and Ida aren't enough for you as far as leads, how about Rod Steiger and Wendell Corry. Steiger to me is sort of the Al Pacino of his generation where he can make small, almost seem unimportant roles and lines look like the best roles that we ever given and lines that were ever written, just because of his delivery. And also like Pacino he can make serious roles and lines seem very funny and have you laughing with him when you're not supposed to, because of his comedic timing, improvisation, and dramatic ability. Wendell Corry as Stanley Hoff's chief counsel,  is simply one of the best character actors ever: like the great role player on a great basketball team, give him an assignment and he knocks it out of the park, regardless of what it is.

Shelley Winters, essentially plays herself in the movie: the big mouth Hollywood actress who knows too much about too many important people, who is frustrated with her studio bosses, who is as adorable and funny as can be, that everyone wants to be around, just as long as they don't say anything that could hurt them. Jean Hagen, the beautiful, sexy, adorable slut of a wife who is unhappily married and wants to be involved with a Hollywood Stud like Charles Castle. ( Played by Jack Palance )

The marriage between Charlie Castle and his wife Marion of course is the main event: they both still are in love with each other, but are both very disappointed with each other. Marion, wants Charlie to leave the corrupt studio that is run by Stanley Hoff ( played by Rod Steiger ) and Charlie does too, but is not ready to make that break. And doesn't like his wife interfering into his career that has made them rich and economically secure.

The Big Knife, is that great and even perfect movie where you have the all-star cast, as well as writing, where the whole story makes sense. And like a great soap opera, it has all the great backstories and subplots behind it with people who have something on someone else and keep each other inline like Stanley keeping Charles inline by not telling the police about a certain accident that he was involved in several years before, just as long as Charles keeps working for him. And other back stories like that. One of the best movies to ever come out of Hollywood, The Big Knife. 

Buffalo Wing Media Bias: Adam Carolla: 'On Hypocrites From The Hollywood Left'

Source:Buffalo Wings Media Bias- Actress Jennifer Aniston First Lady Michelle Obama, probably at some posh event in Hollywood. 
"Comedian Adam Carolla exposes Hollywood's hypocrisy, mainly in the area of taxes and money. When it comes to paying your "fair" share, apparently we should do as they say, not as they do.

Here are a few links to articles referenced in the video:"

From Buffalo Wings Media Bias

Source:POLITICO- "The new Hollywood left"
Adam Carolla who is a libertarian comedian, laid out perfectly what the so-called Hollywood-Left in America really is and what they're really about, which is just a bunch of disingenuous Hollywood hypocrites. If they were a softball team, they would be called the Hollywood Hypocrites with a picture of Che Guevara on their t-shirts, arriving to their ballgames in their limos, Rolls Royces, private jets, smoking their Cuban cigars, drinking Champagne instead of Gatorade at their games. Claiming to be down for the cause and against the man. ( Even though a lot of them are the man  or woman )

It's one thing for Joe and Sally Jones or someone else in Smithville, Ohio ( or some place ) who only has a high school diploma, but who is an excellent construction or factory worker who was making before they were laid off or saw their job go to Mexico or some other low-wage country, 50-60 thousand-dollars a year with benefits, to now be talking about the flaws of American capitalism, because they were screwed out of their job and perhaps are now working two part-time jobs or one full-time and a part-time job, or perhaps three part-time jobs just to make a living. That guy or woman has a real case to make, because they just lost their good job in an economic system that does so well for so many people.

But if you're a multi-millionaire by the time you were in your late 20s, mid 20s, hell, you had your own damn corporation by the time you finished high school or were a child actor and now you have the balls to be talking about how much American capitalism sucks and the rich get away with everything, while the little man, woman, and minorities are getting screwed by the system. Well, aren't you part of the so-called problem that you say you want to correct?

These full-time entertainers and at best part-time activists and to be more accurate they're more like actors who play political activists, talk about how much they think American capitalism sucks, while they enjoy every benefit that comes from never having to worry about money ( just as long as they or their accountant doesn't piss their money away )  and enjoy the life ( as they would call it ) in Manhattan or Los Angeles, while talk about the horrors of homelessness, while they own multiple apartments and houses in multiple cities, in places where you have to be rich just to be able to afford the parking there.

If these Hollywood entertainers really care about the social problems of the country, why don't they donate a lot of their money to charities to other groups ( not politicians and candidates ) to fix those problems. Set up foundations to deal with poverty, instead of just looking good on TV in some TV spot talking about them. If they think the rich are really getting away with financial murder in America, then maybe they should release their own taxes and we can see how much they pay in taxes each year, how much they deduct from their taxes, what percentage of their multi-million-dollar annual incomes that they donate to charity. Don't just put your money with your big, fat, mouth is, but put a lot of your money and actually back up what you say. Instead of letting your mouth write checks that your ass can't or won't cash.

New York and Hollywood get stereotyped as left-wing ( if not Far-Left towns ) but they're not. If you had to find the two most pro-capitalist, pro-liberal democracy, pro-American towns and states in America it would probably be New York City and Los Angeles, and New York State and California. Which might sound like someone saying that Seattle, Washington is the capital of sunburns in America. Or no other city gets more blizzards and snow than Miami, Florida.

But think about it: New York City is the capital of Corporate America and therefor American capitalism. Washington, another supposed left-wing or Far-Left city, is the capital of the free world and liberal democracy. Los Angeles, is not just the movie and TV capital of America ( if not the world ) but the entertainment capital of America. ( If not the world ) If these three big American cities are so Far-Left, pro-socialist, and anti-capitalist, then why the hell are they so damn rich and own so many big companies? Why would someone want to do business in a city that hates capitalism and wealth? Of course they wouldn't, because they would either get taxed or regulated out-of-business, or both.

So, can we stop taking the average run of the mill actor or so-called celebrity seriously, or any actor or entertainer at least when they're talking about American capitalism and how unfair they claim that it is and that the rich get all the breaks, while the little man and woman continually get screwed by the system.

Actors and entertainers are just that and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but their profession is a convenient tool to use against them when they claim that the rich has too much. If they really think they're overpaid, then they're more than welcome to donate a lot of their money to their favorite ( if they have one or do any business at all with any charity ) charity and give up all of their extra homes, fly first class instead of having their own plane, eat their meals at delis and dinners, instead of their favorite posh restaurant in Washington, New York, or Los Angeles.

But until then ( and it finally stops raining in Seattle and they run out of coffee on the same day ) we should take these actors and entertainers only as seriously as they deserve to be taken: which is as actors and entertainers who play a part, because they want to be seen as cool with young people who probably do like socialism and perhaps identify as Socialists. And perhaps because their favorite celebrities claim to hate capitalism and the rich as well. 

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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