The New Yorker: Steven Markow: 'Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party'

Source:The New Yorker- Vote for Centrists, if you too believe in nothing

"The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!

“For the exhausted.”

“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”

“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”

“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”

“We can be bought.”

“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”

“Make news boring again.”

“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”

“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote."

Read more of Steven Markow's piece at The New Yorker

Source:Newsy: 'What does a moderate voter look like?'- Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?

"Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise."

If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.

It's that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they're simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.

My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn't mean that they're a Centrist. It just might mean that they don't like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you're talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you're talking about and don't automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they're Centrists.

Just like you shouldn't assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn't assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they're automatically Centrists.

Me personally, I really don't believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according to the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they're not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.

Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can't be true.

I don't think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government, at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country, civil rights laws, so people aren't denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.

And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?

If you're definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there's a consensus to do so, whose motto: "I'm willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing." If that's your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.

Just look at Millennial's who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it's cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O'Rourke's base. ( Or what's left of it at this point )  A man who proved at last Wednesday's Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he's wishy-washy in two languages.

If you're idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.

I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago.  What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.

George Carlin: 'Would Love To See A Completely Anarchistic Human Race'

Source:George Carlin- George Carlin: The Socialist-Anarchist

"Radio interview with Art Bell"

From George Carlin

Source:Fnord University- "Libertarians and Anarchists LOVE this meme!"

From Wikipedia

"Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism or anarcho-socialism) is a non-state form of socialism and is considered to be the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as being interdependent with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality, while respecting the individual and individual thought. The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism."

So, from reading up on what's called socialist anarchism, it looks like there would be a socialist society ( if they got their way ) but with no government. Just a large community of individuals living together, but without any topdown authority not just telling people what they can and can't do, but not doing anything for them either. Where everyone there would be there to share what they have with each other, because they want to, but not because they're being forced too.

Imagine the largest hippie compound somewhere out in the middle of nowhere California or some state with a lot of rural territory. Or Jonestown ( if you're familiar with the Socialist Reverend Jim Jones ) but without the crazy, murderous dictator. Or imagine The Manson Family compound ( if you're familiar with Charles Manson ) but without the crazy, murderous, spiritualist cult leader.

This might sound crazy, but I could see how Libertarians would like this philosophy, because of the voluntarist aspects to it, instead of the state mandating it. And I could see how Socialists would hate it, even though socialist anarchism ( which is not an Oxymoron ) would hate this and I'll explain that.

The Libertarian positives about this are obvious: a community of people coming together, that polices themselves and voluntarily shares their property. Not Uncle Sam or Uncle Fidel, or Uncle Adolf, Uncle Joseph, or any other big government uncle coming by, not knocking on someone's door, but knocking to down and confiscating someone's property. And saying that these people have too much and these people have too little and big government is going to come in and equal the score. ( So to speak ) I'm guessing that there's no such thing as Robin Hood in a socialist anarchist society.

It's also easy to see why Socialists would hate socialist anarchism, even though it's a form of socialism. Socialist anarchism, is left-wing anarchism, just like anarcho-libertarianism is right-wing anarchism. The reason why Socialists would and I'm sure do hate socialist anarchism, is because it's voluntary. With the Socialist thinking: "wait, you're actually going give people the freedom to manage their own lives and affairs. That's the job of big government, not individuals."

Socialists tend to believe that the world is too complicated of a place for individuals to successfully manage their own personal and economic affairs. And in George Carlin's case especially, Socialists tend to see America specifically as too complicated a place for individuals to manage their own affairs. And Americans specifically as too stupid to manage their own personal affairs.

If you're familiar with my recents posts about George Carlin, you might think that I see him as some type of Libertarian or Classical Liberal, ( Classical Liberals, are the real Liberals ) but he wasn't. Yes, he was a hardcore individualist when it came to personal freedom, freedom of speech, and individuality. But when it came to economic policy, what's called identity politics, cultural issues, American life and America in general, how he felt about Americans, he was right inline with the New-Left Socialist thinking and philosophy of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Which meant George Carlin sounded like Ayn Rand on social issues and on individuality, but he was right inline with Professor Angela Davis, political activist Tom Hayden, and other New-Left Socialist activists from that period. When you think about George Carlin's politics, think about peanut butter on a hot dog; might sound like a crazy and nasty combo, but it worked for him because that's who he was.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dennis Prager: 'Clarity About Nationalism'

Source:Townhall- An American Patriot?

"In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.

The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But in a second paragraph, it adds, “especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Let’s be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this definition is what some people have in mind when they call themselves nationalists.

At the same time, even anti-nationalists would have to acknowledge that if the first paragraph is the definition of “nationalism,” nationalism can often be a beautiful thing.

So, if we are to be honest, the answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad is “How do you define it?”

Read more from Dennis Prager

Source:Crash Course: John Green- 'Samurai, Daimyo, Matthew Perry, and Nationalism: Crash Course World History'- A less serious look of nationalism 

"In which John Green teaches you about Nationalism. Nationalism was everywhere in the 19th century, as people all over the world carved new nation-states out of old empires. Nationalist leaders changed the way people thought of themselves and the places they lived by reinventing education, military service, and the relationship between government and governed. In Japan, the traditional feudal society underwent a long transformation over the course of about 300 years to become a modern nation-state. John follows the course of Japanese history from the emergence of the Tokugawa Shogunate to the Meiji Restoration, and covers Nationalism in many other countries along the way. All this, plus a special guest appearance, plus the return of an old friend on a extra-special episode of Crash Course."

From Wikipedia

"Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.[8] There are three paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernism proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that needs the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[9]

There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared ethnicity, heritage and culture, while civic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared citizenship, values and institutions, and is linked to constitutional patriotism. The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has often been a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to mismatch between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in an anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[10] This anomie results in a society reinterpreting identity, retaining elements deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[10] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are (or are deemed to be) controlling them.[10] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism."

Even right-wing commentator Dennis Prager, ( who is currently a board member of the President Donald J. Trump For Life Fan club. Ha, ha. ) acknowledges in his own column about nationalism that there's bad nationalism and good nationalism. And in his pro-nationalism definition, that sounds more like patriotism.

Patriotism according to Wikipedia

"Patriotism or national pride is the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism."

I'm a Liberal, a Democrat, and a Patriot and no, none of those things contradict each other. I'm an American Patriot, because I love America, period. America, is a country that isn't dominated by one ethnic or religious group and perhaps within 30 years we'll no longer have a racial majority either. I love Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender. Patriots, love their country because of what their country represents: not the people that they associate with, the town, state, region, ethnic, racial, or religious group that they come from.

If there's a mainstream and positive faction within nationalism regardless of the country, it's that a mainstream Nationalist is a Patriot who loves their country, not just the people that associate with and community that they come from. And believes in putting their country's interests above every other country's interests at all times. And believes that their country has no interest and right to be involved in another country's affairs, even if that country is doing horrible things to their own people or another country.

The problem even with my own definition of what it means to be let's say a good Nationalist, is those aren't the Nationalists that Americans tend to hear about and hear from, except for maybe as it relates to foreign policy and national security, where you do see Libertarians who have nationalist leanings at least as it relates to foreign policy and national security.

The Nationalists that Americans tend to hear from are the people who believe that they're the real Americans, the real Patriots and that the people who disagree with them and don't share religious and cultural values, or even look like them are the Un-Americans: invaders and traitors to this great country that the so-called real Americans and the real Patriots supposedly love. And if you don't believe me, just look at the modern Republican Party and their leader that's dominated by an Anglo-Saxon, Christian-Nationalist, rural and Southern faction.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tom Woods: 'My Goal as a Libertarian: To Oppress People'

Source:Being Libertarian- Don't have to convince me

"This person works at a D.C. think tank where a dislike of people like us, and me in particular, is literally company policy: nobody is allowed to cite me, go on my cruise, or even retweet me.

That's an actual policy at an actual institution.

("Institution" being the key word.)"

The rest of Tom Woods here

Source:Tom Woods: Todd Seavey- 'By Popular Demand: Libertarianism 101' - Their definition of libertarianism?

Todd Seavey, author of Libertarianism for Beginners, joins me for a discussion that beginners and advanced students alike will enjoy. We go from the foundations, to real-world applications, to problems for libertarianism, to left and right and libertarians. Much to learn from and enjoy. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

From Wikipedia

"Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.[2][3][4] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.[5]

Libertarianism can be a term for a form of left-wing politics. Such left-libertarian ideologies seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[6][7][8][9] Left libertarian ideologies include—but are not limited to—anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism and egoism, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism. Modern right-libertarian ideologies, such as minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, co-opted the term in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources."

There are times when I really love social media and feel that I almost have to be on it for the sake of my life and personal welfare, ( which might sound slightly overdramatic and a slight exaggeration ) especially Twitter, because you can see things and get into debates, and learn about things and people that you couldn't otherwise, unless you spent all of your time reading and researching online and at other places.

I couldn't find the source of the tweet that this anti-libertarian person ( probably some crazy, whacked out leftist ) that attacked Tom Woods for being a Libertarian. The source of the tweet is not even on Tom Woods blog but if there are people who hate Libertarians and libertarianism for what they believe and stand for, it would be the Far-Left in America, ( Democratic Socialists and Communists ) because in believing in almost complete individualism and individual choice, Socialists are collectivists ( obviously ) and want the state to be in control as much as possible with the responsibility and power to look after everyone else's welfare, especially Communists.

Libertarianism, like every other political philosophy is hard to officially define because you have competing factions in each of it to the points that you'll have competing factions that don't sound like each other at all and the only thing that they have in common is that they call themselves Libertarians. I know this all to well as a Liberal, ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) because you have a lot of people who call themselves Liberals, even though they tend not to support liberal values like liberal democracy and if anything are very illiberal as far as their own politics. Like really strict limits on free speech, personal freedom, property rights, anti-pluralist, etc.

Progressives, have the same issue where you have people who call themselves Progressives, even though a lot of what they believe is actually very regressive. Like believing the perfect is the enemy of the good and being very uncompromising, when progressivism is actually a very pragmatic philosophy.

But libertarianism at least as I define it and how I've viewed the last 20 years or so ever since I became an adult, is the belief in property rights and that property rights extends to one's personal body. That people should have the complete freedom and personal responsibility for their own lives and bodies, just as long as you're not hurting innocent people with what they're doing. You're not physically attacking innocent people, attacking someone's personal property, stealing from them, kidnapping them, forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

So under my definition of libertarianism at least, Libertarians actually do believe in government and even a national government, but that it should be limited, decentralized as much as possible, and there to protect the rights and individual freedom of the people: not there to run people's lives for them by controlling most of their money, or telling them what they can and can't do with their own personal lives, not telling people what they can think and say, etc.

But to get back to my first point about how different political philosophies get mistaken for other philosophies that sound nothing like the political philosophy at hand, liberalism being mistaken for socialism, progressivism being mistaken for socialism, conservatism, being mistaken for Christian-Nationalism and nationalism in general: you have people who call themselves Libertarians, who are actually Right-Anarchists. ( Right-wing Anarchists ) People who are actually Anarcho-Libertarians, who again sound like Anarchists and don't want government at any level to basically do anything, but who call themselves Libertarians.

So at least under my definition, you can see why Socialists ( to be frank ) would hate libertarianism and Libertarians go out-of-their-way to attack Libertarians whether it's Tom Woods or anyone else, because Libertarians believe in the opposite of what Socialists believe. Libertarians, believe in individualism. Socialists, believe the world is a complicated place and that people tend to be stupid ( especially Americans ) and that you need Uncle Sammy ( or whatever the country is ) big enough to manage the lives for all of his nieces and nephews for them. Because libertarianism at least in it's classic form, is the direct opposite and arch-rival of socialism. 

NFL Network: 'Lombardi's Redskins'

Source:NFL Network- I believe Redskins QB Sonny Jurgensen and head coach Vince Lombardi 

"Lombardi's Redskins | The Story of 1969 "The Forgotten Year"

Source:NFL Network

When I think of the Redskins from the late 60s and 1970s, the expression what if comes to mind real fast.

What if, Vince Lombardi hadn't died and lived to coach the Redskins for even 5-10 years; how many Super Bowls would they have won, let alone winning a Super Bowl and beating the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl 7 with Lombardi as their head coach/general manager and Sonny Jurgensen as their QB. Even if Lombardi dies the way he did, what if their new head coach and GM George Allen, doesn't name veteran journeyman and mediocre QB Billy Kilmer as his starting QB and he instead let Sonny finish his career as the starting QB of the Redskins and Allen kept the Redskins offense in place, instead of playing a lot more conservatively on offense, how many Super Bowls would have the Redskins won with Lombardi or Allen as their head coach and GM.

But to get back to Lombardi and his impact on the Redskins, you have to know what kind of franchise they were in Washington the previous 13 seasons, before you get to 1969: pre-Lombardi, a good season for the Redskins even with Sonny Jurgensen as their QB, a good season for the Redskins was 6-8 or 7-7. The Redskins of the 1960s, were very similar to the San Diego Chargers of the mid and late 80s: they scored a lot of points mostly with their passing game, but gave up just as much if not more. One of the top offenses in the NFL, to go along with one of the worst defenses. From 1956-68. 13 straight non-winning seasons for the Redskins where again a good season 6-8 or 7-7. Not 10-4 and just missing the playoffs.

Also to understand Vince Lombardi's impact on the Redskins, you have to know what he brought to the Green Bay Packers in the 1960s as well: Lombardi, believed that the way you win in the NFL, was to control the line of scrimmage, very similar to Bill Parcells and another great Redskins head coach Joe Gibbs. You win in the NFL by running the ball, stopping the run, protecting your QB and attacking the other QB. And then go to play action in the passing the game, to move the ball down the field, but to also keep the defense off balance so they can't concentrate so much on your running game.

The Redskins of the 1960s pre-Lombardi, passed the ball 30-35 times or more a game with Sonny Jurgenson and whatever running game they had came after long passes from the passing game. Lombardi, kept the explosive passing game with Sonny, WR's Charley Taylor, Jerry Smith, and Roy Jefferson, but added RB Larry Brown and improved the offensive line and now the Redskins had a good running game, with one of the best passing games in the NFL. So Lombardi, brought balance to an already explosive Redskins passing game.

The Redskins go from 5-6 in 1967 and 5-9 in 1968, to 7-5 in 1969. Now you might say that winning an extra 2 games from the previous season in 1969 is not a big deal, especially since the Redskins already had a good offense, but again Vince Lombardi's first season in Washington and the Redskins first winning season of any kind since 1955. Lombardi's first season in Green Bay, he was 7-5 and the Packers get to the NFL Championship in his second season in 1960 and win the Championship in 1962. Lombardi, brought discipline to Washington and taught a young Redskins team how to win and not settle for being OK, but that instead you need to be as good as you possibly can be, so you can be as successful as you can be. Something that they hadn't had since the Ray Flaherty era in the 1930s and 40s, which was Vince Lombardi's impact on the Redskins.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Melina: Natasha Richardson- Lauren Bacall: Intimate Portrait

Source:Melina- Lauren Bacall: too cute to scare a mouse.

“Lauren Bacall: Intimate Portrait”

Source:Melina

If you're familiar with my social media activity, you know that I'm a big fan of classic movies and Classic Hollywood in general, especially actresses from that era. And you also know that I use the term Hollywood Goddess, to describe actresses that I love and respect. So maybe I should explain what I mean by Hollywood Goddess and who is a Hollywood Goddess, at least according to my definition of Hollywood Goddess.

To me a Hollywood Goddess, is of course a woman is not just beautiful, but obviously so and not just sexy, but obviously sexy physically and personally. Someone with a great intelligence, personality, as well as body. But a woman who is also a great actress. So of course Lauren Bacall would is not just a Hollywood Goddess, but one of the best ever, if not the best ever. Sophia Loren, seriously try finding a better looking woman who ever worked in Hollywood, who is also a great actress, who is also better looking than Sophia. Anita Ekberg, Angie Dickinson, Gena Rowlands, Rita Hayworth, Gene Tierney, Raquel Welch, and the list goes on.

There are actresses that fly by in Hollywood like a plane through the sky at night or a moving ship in the water, that don't seem to make any impact and aren't memorable. There are actresses that make a big splash early in their careers, but never get back in the water and are out of Hollywood what seems like the next day and never heard of again, or die prematurely. Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield come to mind real fast as far as that second group of actresses. And then there are the Hollywood Goddesses who are just unforgettable and you see them once and soon develop a crush on them, because you can't get them out of your minds. To me those actresses are the Goddesses of Hollywood. The A-List of Hollywood actresses, the best of the best.

To me at least Lauren Bacall is not a Hollywood Goddess, but the Hollywood Goddess of all-time. Not saying she's the best looking woman to ever work in Hollywood, but just the best. When you're talking about the gorgeous, sexy actresses who've ever worked in Hollywood, she's not just the best actress when it comes to gorgeous, sexy woman in Hollywood, but at least arguably the best actress who has ever worked in Hollywood. Her timing, her delivery, her ability to bring great and quick wit to serious roles and situations as a woman who just didn't have a comedic wit, but a great comedic wit, ( just look at her appearances on Johnny Carson ) her memorable roles in the 1940s with her husband Humphrey Bogart in their film noir movies like Dark Passage, The Big Sleep, and others.

And then you're also talking about a woman who if anything got better looking as she got older: she goes from being tall and slim in the 1940s and the 1950s, to tall and sexy with the legs and butt of a pro-tennis player by the 1970s. Lauren Bacall, is not just a Hollywood Goddess, but the Goddess of Hollywood, at least from my perspective.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The New Yorker: Osita Nevanevu: 'Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders & Two Paths For The American Left'

Source:The New Yorker- The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party.

"This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.

But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”

This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected."

Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu's piece at The New Yorker

“Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s new tax plans would make sure the super rich pay their fair share.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.’ It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans.”

Source:Now This- Bernie vs. Liz 

From Now This

 When you’re talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you’re talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on what the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn’t interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren’t denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics.

Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.

But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they’re both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.

This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn’t not just fly, but it doesn’t get off the ground. Sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it’s too hot and the plane overheats. (Something that I’ve experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there’s too much snow on the ground.

For one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system. When Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist. That she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question. She was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not.

The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn’t, is how they self-describe their politics.

Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet, Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )

Bernie and Liz, both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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