AddThis

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

The Rubin Report: Scott Adams & Dave Rubin- Donald Trump's Persuasion and Presidency

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: The Rubin Report: Scott Adams & Dave Rubin- Donald Trump's Persuasion and Presidency

Is Donald Trump the best salesman we've ever seen in American politics as far as getting people to by what he's selling regardless of the quality of products that he's selling, or is he the best conman we've ever seen in American politics? If you look at his agenda and how unpopular it is and his lack of success in getting anything that he ran on 2016 passed in Congress, he's not a very good salesman.

Running for president and even getting elected President, is obviously a hell of a lot different than doing the job and getting people to support what you're doing. A 33-35% approval rating out of 100% by the way, is not a very good record as far as selling your presidency and your agenda. So in this sense at least he's the worst salesman perhaps we've ever seen in American politics, at least to this point, because only a third of the country is buying what he's doing right now.

Donald Trump literally operates in a fact free world. Its not what the truth actually is that concerns him, because the truth is generally bad about him. Its what he can literally get away with that concerns him. This is why I mentioned the conman part because if the conman literally operated from the truth and told people he has all of this junk to sell you or this scam you should invest in and give the conman most of the money that the customer would never see a dime on and would lose a lot of money instead, the conman would never be successful, obviously. Donald Trump operates in the same fact free world that a conman operates from. Its not the truth thats important, but what he can get away with and what he can get people to believe.

One thing I'll give Donald Trump credit for is that he's a master salesman/conman at getting people who now hate American politics (thanks to the Republican Party and Democratic Party) to buy what he's selling. He's great with labeling people and situations and great with political catch phrases. "Make America great again." Well, if you get past the small point that most Americans including myself already think America is great and thought America was great back in 2008-09 when George W. Bush was still President, who could possibly disagree with that catch phrase. Who doesn't (except for Socialists and Communists) want America to be great?

I agree with Scott Adams on one thing. But I would have one qualifier to that. I believe a popular inspirational well-funded Democrat would have beaten Donald Trump in 2016 just because Trump s Trump and the campaign he ran. Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania and Michigan because Democrats there voted for Trump. Imagine someone with Hillary's personal and professional qualifications, but without the baggage. Who was likable and viewed generally as fairly honest at least. Barack Obama if hr were eligible to run for a third term as President in 2016, I believe beats Trump going away.

What Donald Trump had going for him if that even though America finally broke away from the Great Recession and the economy was firmly strong again, you had millions of blue-collar Caucasian-American voters in the Midwest who weren't feeling the economic recovery. And if anything were worst off than they were ten years ago. Who saw immigration and perhaps even Latinos and Middle Easterners, as a threat to their way of life. Which is the base of voters that Donald Trump spoke to and claimed to represent. Even though just 6-8 years ago Donald Trump was a damn Yankee from New York City and even a Liberal Democrat (in the real sense, not stereotypical sense) who was friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and who liked The Kennedy's.

To go back to the conman part of Donald Trump. Trump was able to sell bag of goods that had probably already expired years ago and was able to sell these people that he represented them and was going to fight for them. And ran this tribalist nationalist campaign of us against them. What they would call the real Americans, against people who hated America, as they would argue. And when you have a section of the country who believes their America is disappearing and your opponent is Hillary Clinton or someone as unpopular as she is and a Democratic Party that rather not vote at all, than to vote for either Hillary or The Donald, a presidential campaign that Trump run can be effective and even win. 

Friday, December 1, 2017

Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- "Why We Don't Suck"

Source: Politics and Prose-
Source: Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- "Why We Don't Suck"

I haven't read Denis Leary's book so I can't get you any real analysis of it whatsoever. But I was alive, conscience, and in America, for the entire time in 2016. Except when I wasn't sleeping, which is any longer than the average American sleeps. And I can tell you about Suck Bowl 2016 (which is what I call the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton presidential election) and why it was the worst presidential election we've ever seen.

I voted for Hillary Clinton for president and would do again million straight times, if her opponent is Donald Trump or anyone else who is as unqualified to even be a back benching member of the House of Representatives, let alone President of the United States. Ot is as immature, thin skinned, unread, lacking in intelligence, knowledge, and curiosity about how the U.S. Government works, narcissistic, dishonest, as a Donald Trump or anyone else with those same characteristics. That are the only reasons why I voted for her.

Not because I'm a fan of Hillary Clinton. I basically see her as a well-meaning intelligent person, who wants to do a good job. And if it wasn't for this Thanksgiving grocery shopping list of reasons why I don't like her, I could vote for her because I believe in her and believe she would do a great job. We're talking about a major presidential nominee who has been thinking about being President of the United States, at least since she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, and yet didn't seem to have any vision of why she should be President and what her campaign was about. Other than that she's a well-educated, rich yuppie New Yorker, who is also a feminist and a Democrat. Which is why the rich cool people should vote for her. And that she's also a woman and would be the worst female President of the United States. Well, most of the rich cool people did vote for Hillary and she still lost states that no Democrat has lost since 1988. Pennsylvania and Michigan.

So you have the baggage of Hillary Clinton. Well some of the baggage. How about her lack of candor  and genuineness and ability to make a statement that doesn't sound like it was poll tested or that some who works for her told her to say. Which killed her in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, probably Florida as well, states where she was heavily favored going in. What those voters saw in Donald Trump was at least someone who seems to say what he thinks, at least at the time. Even if he changes his position five minutes later after hearing what Breitbart or some other Far-Right publication or organization thinks about it. But Trump came off as real and says what's on his mind. Instead of someone who seems to say whatever the polls are telling him are popular at the time.

This is why I call the 2016 presidential election Suck Bowl 2016. Perhaps the the two worst presidential candidates you could imagine running against each other. One, who might be a good public servant, but who is a horrible politician at least in the sense that she lacks any ability to communicate a vision for the country and what her presidency would be like and why people should vote for her. Against a natural politician at least in the sense of someone who can bring voters behind him and be able to speak to them. But who is a horrible public servant simply because he doesn't believe in public service. His idea of service is serving himself. And some people are still wondering why Americans at least say they hate American politics and don't like American politicians.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

If you're a Socialist especially a hardcore Socialist who looks up to people like Che Guevara and even have some respect at least for some aspects of communism, even if you don't like the authoritarian aspects of it, Ayn Rand literally is the devil. Because she represents everything that you hate. Freedom, individualism, free-thinking, the belief that people should actually be able to make a living on their own and not have to be babysat by government.

Because if you are a Socialist who puts all their political eggs in the basket of big government like a wishbone offense in football that if they can't run the ball, they literally can't move the ball, because they have almost no passing game to speak of. And if government can't solve problems, by itself those problems don't get solved according to the Socialist. Because the socialist philosophy of socialism is completely centered not around government or even big government, but big centralized national government. Where even state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, barely exist, because so much power in the country is centralized with the national government.

Because Socialists tend to see freedom as dangerous and individualism as selfish. That if you give people the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs, you're only giving them the freedom to make mistakes that society (which is government, according to the Socialist) will have to pay for. Also, is you give people the freedom  to manage their own affairs, they might become good at it which is what adults tend to do and not need or want government to take care of them and be less incline to have your tax dollars taking care of people who aren't as free as you. Socialists tend to see people who don't think like them at least, if not people in general as idiots. People who need help tying their own shoes and even spelling their own names. Who need big government managing their lives for them.

Socialists also see individualism as selfish. This idea that people can go out in the world and be creative, think for themselves and create new things. Is like trying to explain calculus to a fish. Its so foreign to them and would be like an American who has spent their whole life in America, who only speaks English and one day finds them self in Mongolia. It would be like being on another planet for that person having no idea what people are saying or even what language they're speaking. That is what its like trying to explain freedom and individualism to Socialists. You might have better luck trying to teach your dog to speak Chinese. Because freedom and individualism, completely goes against everything that Socialists have ever believed and have been taught.

As much as the Christian-Right hates feminism and freedom and equal rights for women, as if women are human beings who are capable of making their own decisions and living their own lives and deserving of equal rights as men, thats how much Socialists whether they're democratic or communist, hate Ayn Rand. Because they see her as the devil who represents individualism and freedom. Which to them is as bad as cancer or stealing. It completely goes against what they believe in and what they've been taught as people.
Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

Monday, November 27, 2017

Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Source: Skeptic Magazine-
Source: Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

I believe anyone who is a realist and just doesn't call themselves a realist because they have some need to have people believed they're smarter and more advanced than they really are, but literally lives by the attitude or practice of accepting situations for what they are and not over or underplaying things, but seeing everything for what it is based on the best available information at the time, is not just going to be a skeptic but a natural skeptic. As well as one of the least romantic people you'll ever meet. Not a bad person, necessarily but not someone who doesn't have big dreams generally.

A skeptic is Probably not a fan of romantic comedies and certainly not romance novels and not someone you want to spend a day watching a holiday movie marathon of romantic comedies on The Hallmark Channel or some other network. Not someone who is going to say, "dreams really do come true." But instead will be the person that not just tells you what they know and what they're thinking and will kick your butt verbally when you need it because they'll tell you when you screwed up and perhaps tell you how you can fix the problem or problems. They'll tell you what you don't want to hear, because they know its medicine that you need to know to improve yourself.

According to Wikipedia- skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. A skeptic will be the last person who is going to get screwed over by someone or something, because the skeptic doesn't automatically take everything that they hear from someone else at face value. "That person must be telling the truth because they would't hurt me or are not stupid." Really? That might be true but if that person just happens to tell the same thing to a skeptic, the skeptic won't automatically take whatever that person said at face value, especially if what that person said doesn't match up very well with reality. Doesn't match up with the best available facts and evidence on the ground.

I believe skeptics are people who have generally been screwed over by others in the past and simply hate that feeling to the point that they don't want that to happen to them again. So a wealthy man lets say who perhaps isn't the best looking man around who has a history of being involved with beautiful sexy women who later get a lot of money and other property from the man and perhaps even win judgements against the man, that guy especially if they're still a wealthy man even after dating all the gold diggers, will have hopefully have learned their lesson. Especially after already being played by 3-5 gold diggers in the past and will think long and hard about getting involved with another beautiful sexy woman in the future, especially a younger woman and make preparations in the future. Especially if that guy already has kids who are grown up.

Now, someone who doesn't have a history of being screwed over but has been very skeptical all along just from being on Planet Earth especially in America and knowing that there are a lot of Americans who want the truth to be better than it is, as well as having a habit for telling people what they want to know instead of whatever the truth is, that is the person that you want to get to know. Even if you do love romance and even romantic comedies and holiday movies, because you'll always know where that person is emotionally, what they're thinking because they'll tell you. And you'll end up learning a lot from that person. You also might come down with a case of depression,  because a lot of news in the world and what's going on can be tough to hear. But if you're a mentally healthy intelligent person, you'll not only get a lot from that person but be able to handle that information as well.

I'm not saying people should be negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I'm saying they should be real and always live on Planet Earth. Unless they're an astronaut and then I guess there will be times when they leave the real world. But seriously, always know what's going on so you can make the best available decisions and adjustments that you possibly can. The three most valuable tools that any person can have in life are their health, time, and information. Without your health, you really can't do anything and you might not even be conscience anyway. Without time, well you can't do anything either because you're always out of time.

But without valuable credible information even if you're healthy and manage your time well, you're going to make a lot of mistake simply because you don't know what the hell your'e doing. A person that Rachel Bloom might call can asshole. Someone who is skeptical or is a skeptic, will simply make the best decisions they possibly can because they're always operating under the best information. Thats all. 

Sunday, November 26, 2017

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama

Source: HBO-
Source: HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama

I'm not from Alabama and have never even actually spent a day in Alabama, but I get two things out of this story. One, that this behavior (assuming Roy Moore is guilty) is actually normal and if Roy Moore wasn't running for the U.S. Senate, maybe it wouldn't have become news. I mean, you had Republican leaders in that state saying what Moore is accused of are gifts from Good and natural acts. I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty close.

That if Moore wasn't the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate that this story would have never come out. The women wouldn't have come out because no one in Alabama including the media there, would have taken them seriously, let alone bothered to look into the allegations. Once Roy Moore not just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and then won the GOP nomination, is when this story became a national story.

The Senate is part of Congress obviously and a Federal institution and not many people more powerful in the country than a U.S. Senator. And not many institutions covered more closely than Congress, because of how important it is. Which is why you had a Washington Post reporter covering a Alabama Senate race in Alabama and the women going to The Post to talk about their allegations. Now, if Roy Moore was running for State Senate in Alabama representing Gadsden, Alabama, then this story wouldn't be a big deal. Again, we wouldn't have heard from the women because they wouldn't have been taken seriously. And again, to go back to Alabama as a state, this behavior seems to at least be acceptable to the Christian-Right there. Which is more of a religious cult than anything else.

The other thing that I get from the Roy Moore story is that this is Alabama. Anyone left to wonder the Alabama is seen as a backwards redneck neanderthal state that was in a statewide coma during most of the 20th Century and would only come out of their coma to prevent African-Americans from exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. So of course a lot of Alabama is not aware of what has been going on in America in the last ten years or so, let alone the 20th Century, because they still believe America is in a pre-civil war area. And that women should be nothing more than servants to men. So why not teenage girls being servants to men and their sexual needs. At least this is the perception of Alabama and not just for Washington, or New York, or San Francisco, but Atlanta and a lot of the state of Georgia which is a neighbor of Alabama.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Crash Course: John Green- 1984 by George Orwell- Crash Course Literature

Source: Crash Course-
Source: Crash Course: John Green- 1984 by George Orwell: Crash Course Literature

Under George Orwell, 1984 is a dystopia where everything is in black and white and apparently rainbows don't exist. You can have black or white, water or skim milk, thats it and no other choices. A very depressing state where it's always dark with no light not even street lights or ever flashlights. Sounds like a world for only chronic depressives and bedwetting leftists who are only happy when they're sad. Up is down, water is dry, rocks are soft, fire is cold, ice is hot, Catholics are Muslim, facts don't even exist, let alone matter. Sort of sounds like Donald Trump's head and state of mind. I was going to leave any Trump jokes and personal jokes out of this on Thanksgiving, but I changed my mind.

Part of Orwell 1984 is about big government, big brother, even though George Orwell was a Socialist and at least shared the goals of Democratic Socialists, but didn't like communism. But he envisioned where everyone basically lived in a complete police state where Big Government always knew what everyone was doing and even talking to. See, in a communist state or a theocratic fascist state, there's no such thing as privacy even, let alone a right to privacy and everyone is subjected to the police state where freedom and individualism are not allowed or even exist.

Imagine doing time in a prison that is the size of a major country. Take North Korea, just to use as an example and you'll know what a police state is like. One gigantic national prison where everyone in society is doing hard time. Talk about raising your kids in prison and if watch those famous prison shows on cable, you'll know what I mean because they cover inmates who also have kids and women who've actually given birth in prison.

Orwell 1984 sounds like a great book for people who've swallowed jars of happy pills. Perhaps mistaking them from sleeping pills in an  attempt to commit suicide and now have just shot themselves in the foot twice. They go from being chronically depressed to being too happy and never being able to go to bed because they're so excited all the time about how awesome life is now for them and are given 1984 by a friend which brings them back down to earth from the Planet Galaxy or wherever. And now they're back in the state of mind where they were before about how much life sucks. If I'm ever too happy which as a realist that will be one hell of a goal to try to accomplish, like trying to swim across the Atlantic Ocean with one arm and one leg, I might actually read Orwell 1984 at some point. Or just move to North Korea to see what life is like in a police state.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

AlterNet: Opinion- Liz Posner: '8 Things That Are Probably True About You if You Identify As Spiritual But Not Religious'

Source: AlterNet-
Source: AlterNet: Opinion- Liz Posner: '8 Things That Are Probably True About You If You Identify As Spiritual But Not Religious

When I hear someone tell me that they're spiritual, but not religious, my first reaction if I'm not smirking is something generally like, "really?"

Someone who is religious believes in a God who is a superhuman controlling power and a belief in something greater than them self.

Someone who is self-described as spiritual, but not religious is someone who believes in the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul, as opposed to material or physical things. Sort of sounds like the definition of a Socialist, but that might be for a different discussion. According to Wikipedia the term spirituality originally developed within early Christianity.

Someone who is religious is also spiritual. I mean, what do you think houses of worship are for. You could be someone who practices a certain religion but doesn't believe in God or is simply neutral when it comes to God like an Agnostic and be spiritual in that way. There's this growing movement with young people (meaning Millennial's) who don't want to be religious or at least seen as religious with people they hangout with or respect, because they believe those people will think they're not cool or something, but they also don't want to be identified as Atheists either. So they try to thread the needle (so to speak) and self-identify as spiritual.

Spirituality is very common and popular with hipsters especially in Hollywood who believe religion is not cool, or at least their followers believe religion is not cool, but they're not comfortable identifying themselves as Atheists, because they come from religious families or perhaps just don't want to be known as an Atheist. In case it isn't obvious, Hollywood is about perception and not reality. Style over substance, which is something that they have in common with politicians.

If someone tells me they're an Atheist, I can respect that. I mean really, who can honestly actually say they've seen God before, let alone met the man. I mean, we don't see any sightings of Jesus Christ, or Moses, or Allah, except maybe around Halloween.

Its the fundamentalist Atheists who I have a problem with who look down upon people who are religious simply because they're religious. Or the faux Atheists who claim to be Atheists, but only critique Christianity especially fundamentalist Protestant Christianity because of hard-core stances that Evangelicals take on social issues and bigotry that they show against gays and other religions, women's place in the world, but never critique other religions that have similar, if not identical stances on the same issues.

Or so-called Atheists who label people as bigots even when they accurately critique Muslims for their regressive views on the same social issues that Evangelicals are known for having. And of course I'm talking about how the so-called politically correct Far-Left went after Bill Maher a few years ago for his stances against Islam. Bill Maher is a real Atheist and doesn't just call himself to sound cool with hipsters.

I'm an Agnostic myself simply because I don't know if there is a God or not. As a Liberal I base all my political beliefs as well as non-political beliefs on reason, evidence, and facts. Instead of having faith in some so-called higher being who supposedly always has my best interest at heart. Even though I never met this supposed person. And I'm someone who tends to not have faith in things or people, unless there's good reason and evidence to have faith. But just because you don't know that there is a God, doesn't mean you know there isn't a God. Which is where I separate from Atheists.

A big problem with America especially with young people (I know I sound like a grandfather now) is faddism. This need to be seen following whatever the current trend is especially with whatever fad young cool people are following. If walking down the street or showing up to work wearing nothing but a t-shirt, underwear, and cowboy boots, became a regular thing with whoever the current hot celebrities are supposed to be, you would see thousands if not millions of young Americans doing the same thing. And we would probably see a spike in the unemployment rate as a result, at least with young adults, because those people would get fired right on the spot for completely breaking the company dress code. Spirituality along with Scientology, is a Hollywood hipster fad and when its no longer seen as cool is when it will disappear. But not a movement that I respect or even take seriously.
Source: Koi Fresco: Religion Vs. Spirituality

Friday, November 17, 2017

The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Source: The Independent Institute-
Source: The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

What Socialists don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism, is that Libertarians have this inane idea (according to Socialists) that people should be allowed to make a good living and then be able to live off of those rewards. The fruits of their labor, to sound like a cheeseball.

What the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists (who voted for Donald Trump) don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism is that Libertarians have this crazy idea (according to the Christian-Right) that people have property rights and that extends to their homes and their bodies. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, short of hurting innocent people. Even if that offends the religious and moral values of the Christian-Right.

What I don't like about the Libertarian-Right, well their a few things and I guess I could name them all. But they claim to be against big government and government interference and yet they tend to sound more like they're anti-government all together. That they see America as some deserted island where there's almost no evidence of life and all of these people show up all the sudden and over the years and create a new society short of having any government.

The so-called Anarcho-Libertarians, seem to believe that arresting suspects as part of a criminal investigation, is somehow a form of kidnapping. That if someone wrongs you its up to that person to get justice for themselves. Instead of relying on a law enforcement department to handle that for you. Because if we have public law enforcement and government, that would require taxes to fund those agencies. That putting convicted murderers, to use as an example who are actually guilty of murdering the people they were convicted for, that putting them in prison for their crimes, somehow violated the murderer's rights. Someone who believes that comes from another planet and perhaps is just on Earth for a visit. Perhaps to see what the real world looks like.

Conservative-Libertarians like the Barry Goldwater's from back in the day, Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress today, P.J. O'Rourke, those Libertarians I can respect, because they're not Anarchists, but Libertarians. They want a government limited to only doing for the people what we can't do for ourselves. And not messing around in other countries affairs. And also they sound like sane intelligent people who base their politics from this crazy word called reason. And not sounding like escaped mental patients, who've been on nothing but marijuana and alcohol, since they fled from the institution.

And I could also talk about how conspiratorial Libertarians tend to be and how they resemble the Socialist-Left in America and how dovish they are and blaming Lyndon Johnson for the JFK assassination. Libertarians are supposed to hate Socialists and socialism, and yet they sleep in the same bed at the same time with Socialists when arguing about all of these conspiracy theories. Like the JFK assassination, but arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and I could go on. Just look at Alex Jones website if you want more.

Or the antisemitism and even racism that Libertarians have expressed against non-Europeans in America and how now a faction of the Libertarian-Right is now part of the Alt-Right. The Stefan Molyneaux's and others who claim to be Libertarians, but have argued that immigration is somehow a threat to the European-American culture. As well as some Libertarians arguing at least in the past and again something they have in common with the Socialist-Left in America and people like socialist author and writer Noam Chomsky, that America is largest terrorist state in the world and perhaps the only international terrorist organization in the world.

As a Liberal I'm all about (to use a cliche from the 2000s) getting and keeping big government out of my wallets and bedroom. The whole notion of being an adult (who is not currently incarcerated) is that you get to make your own personal and economic decisions, but then have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We don't need a national, or even state, or local, religious leader or nanny statist, babysitting free adults.

So again, I respect the Rand Paul's Jeff Flake's, Ron Johnson's, Justin Amash's, and others in Congress. These are all Republicans by the way in the Senate and House. But the Alt-Right that is part of the Libertarian-Right and the anarcho wing of the Libertarian-Right, they can sound just as crazy as the Socialist-Left. Perhaps as if they did time with them in an institution. And when the crazies become the faces of your movement, your movement loses credibility and the ability to be taken seriously in American politics.


Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Saturday Night Live: Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open

Source: SNL-
Source: Saturday Night Live: Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open

Of course there are perhaps millions of reasons why Alabama is considered a backwards stuck in the 1850s, let alone 1950s state that perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the other gulf states could be proud of.

Like people being selfish when it comes to their names and feeling the need to have two first names instead of just one. Jim or Bob, is not good enough for a lot of Alabamans so they combine the two and call themselves Jim Bob. Elizabeth or Susan, not good enough for a lot of women in Alabama, so they go by Betty Sue.

Fundamentalist religious beliefs that don't come from anywhere in the Bible at least, but a lot of Alabamans put their faith and fundamentalism over annoying little things like facts, reason, and science.

Alabaman cousins falling in love with each other.

People going to the University of Alabama not because they believe its a great university, but because they want to play football in the NFL and be part of a great football program.

Low literacy rates, high poverty, lack of infrastructure and education. But what do you expect when you put your religious fundamentalism or what Roy Moore calls God's Law, over education and facts.

But if there was just one reason and I just named five for why even Southern states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, look at Alabama as if it was an embarrassment and joke. Like that next door neighbor who mows his lawn naked, or has a Nazi flag hanging from their house who has Jewish and African-American neighbors. Its how Alabamans are seen at least when it comes to male and female relations. What men in Alabama seem to believe they can get away with or is completely acceptable when it comes to how they treat women and even girls.

A 14 year old girl, is obviously not a woman. Even in Alabama legal consent is 16, even though most of the rest of the country legal consent is 18. But, again we're talking about Alabama. And if you're not from the Bible Belt talking about Alabama can be like talking about Afghanistan. Some far away country that is very backwards, at least compared with the Western developed world.

In almost every other state in the Union except for perhaps Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and perhaps Texas, at least in the deep rural parts of that huge state, Roy Moore wouldn't be considered a joke or an embarrassment. Perhaps that would be like complement compared with what he really is. He would be considered a disgrace. Women outside of the Bible Belt, wouldn't have waited 35-40 years to speak out about what Roy Moore did to them when they were girls. Because they wouldn't worry about the backlash that could have come from speaking out against this fundamentalist redneck who calls himself a Christian, and yet he has very anti-Christian beliefs. And is more of a religious theocrat with no real religion backing what he believes.

About a month from now we're going to see if Alabama is ready to join the 21st Century. Because they missed out on a lot of the 20th Century, at least the positive aspects of it and reject this neanderthal who calls himself a Christian and say that Alabama also believes that pedophilia, child molestation, and sexual harassment, are wrong. And they don't want anyone like Roy Moore representing then anywhere in Congress, especially in the Senate, but the House as well. And hopefully they'll overwhelmingly reject him. Even if that means having a Democrat who doesn't have the sexual baggage as their next U.S. Senator.

Monday, November 13, 2017

The Washington Post: Todd Townsend & Carol Cordon Bleu- What if Hillary Clinton Had Won?: Department of Satire

Source: The Washington Post-
Source: The Washington Post: Todd Townsend & Carol Cordon Bleu- What If Hillary Clinton Had Won?: Department of Satire

Imagine a President Hillary Clinton if you can just for a minute and especially considering the current President of the United States., that shouldn't be too scary.

Millions of men who are on the Alt-Right and the Nationalist -Right in America, would be protesting daily about what they see as a radical feminist Communist in the White House, who seeks to eliminate all forms of masculinity and manhood. And transform all the wealth from Caucasian-Americans, to all racial and ethnic minorities in the country.

Fox News with a daily as well as 24 hours not so special coverage about what they call the criminal in the White House and her attempts to destroy what they call their traditional America.

Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, Republicans would probably still control the House, but there'a a reasonable chance that Democrats could have won back the Senate, because there would've been a higher Democratic turnout in states like Pennsylvania and Florida. And perhaps Democrats would have won the Senate even if there was a 50-50 split. And we would see House Republicans launching new investigations in to the lives of the Bill and Hillary Clinton. Making the Ken Starr investigation from the 1990s look like not just a fishing expedition, but fishing festival. Wait, the Ken Starr investigation was a fishing expedition.

Perhaps the Christian-Right leaves America and goes to Saudi Arabia or Iran, where its still okay and acceptable to treat girls and women like property. Since they'll no longer be able to do that with a Clinton Administration in America. Judge Roy Moore would be one of the first so-called Christian-Conservatives packing his bags and out on the first flight to Riyadh or Tehran.

We'll never know this for sure, but we do know that you still have a large Donald Trump base in the Republican Party who views President Trump as their cult leader. And won't criticize anything that Trump does including not paying his taxes, because Donald Trump is their cult leader. And if he does something it must be okay to them because he did it. And no godlike cult leader can ever be wrong according to them. But without a Donald Trump, these Republicans would return back to Planet Earth at least even if its just for a visit, to stop at all costs Hillary Clinton from doing her job as President of the United States had she won in 2016 and try to prevent her from finishing her first term. 

Saturday, November 11, 2017

HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- Economic Development

Source: Last Week Tonight-
Source: HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- Economic Development

I get that John Oliver don't like corporate welfare and neither do I and perhaps views any tax incentives as private business and individuals steeling government's money. (As Socialists would argue) As if government has any of their own money. The old phrase that money doesn't grow on trees is particularly app when talking about government. Even when government prints money (which is government creating money out of thin air) they need to actually print the bills with a printing machine. Instead of planting paper in the ground and hoping it eventually grows on trees.

If this is about pork barrel spending, then I agree with Oliver on that as well. Tax dollars that are purely designed for politicians to be able to pay off their political debts to their contributors and creates no economic benefit for the constituents that they represent. Which is nothing more than a form of legal bribery in America whether its done from Congress, or at the state and local levels.

The reason why people stay in Congress for so so long, well their several reasons. They represent people who don't have enough time to research incumbents and candidates, because they're too busy staring at their i-phones and watching reality TV. Which of course is really important in life, not like trying to figure out where their hard-earned tax dollars go whether its for pork or for anything else.

But also people stay in Congress both in the House and Senate for so long because they get fat from pork. And are too fat to move out of Capitol Hill and actually get a real job. And as long as voters don't do their homework on people that are supposed to represent them and people who want to replace their porky Representative's and Senator's, we're going to see tax funded scandals like this. Money to companies that only get tax funded subsidies because they knew who in government to call and to payoff.

That fact is if you want jobs and you want Welfare even and a broader welfare state all together, which is the pot fantasy of a lifetime for Socialists in America, you need what John Oliver was talking about the beginning of his rant which are jobs. You want businesses investing in your communities and they need incentive to locate there. They need a workforce that is actually qualified to do the jobs that will be there. I know, that sounds crazy having people qualified for the jobs that they're supposed to do.

But you also need regulations that are easy to understand and actually make sense, are actually needed, and don't make doing business in your community too expensive. I know, more commonsense, I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. Otherwise we won't have a society where everyone is on Welfare and that socialist dream will never come because again money doesn't grow on trees, not even government money. (Sorry Bernie Sanders supporters) But instead a society where everyone is homeless or looking for an affordable place to live because no one has a job. Because taxes are too high and regulations are so strict that government is practically running what are supposed to be private businesses.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord- My Real Time With Bill Maher

Source: The American Spectator-
Source: The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord- My Real Time With Bill Maher

I don't know what Donald Trump is paying Jeffrey Lord and even if he was paying Lord, he actually wouldn't be paying him and instead of raise the money from other people and use that to pay Lord or just ask one of bis friends to pay Lord, but whatever President Trump might be paying Mr. Lord is simply not enough. Lord who has go more than way out of his way to defend Trump. Going out of his way to defend Trump is a huge understatement. It would be like saying America had a civil war because the South didn't want a bearded President. Not just false but doesn't make any sense.

Jeff Lord has risked his personal and perhaps professional reputation to defend a man who has made a career of screwing people for his own benefit. Who apparently can't be left alone with women who don't him well because of what he might do to them. A man in Donald Trump who pre-2010 was a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat at that. A man who is a proud New Yorker and didn't consider himself very religious at all until he became the leader of the Birther Nationalist Tea Party movement in 2011, is now the darling of the Tea Party Nationalists in America.

Tea Party Nationalists can't believe anything that is negative that is reported about their cult leader (Donald Trump) even if its reported by the conservative Wall Street Journal or even propaganda agency of the Trump Administration. (Better known as Fox News) Who can't believe Barack Obama is not only an American citizen, but actually born in America, even though he has a Hawaii birth certificate. 9/'11 was an inside job, the Russian investigation is a hoax even though every single U.S. national security and intelligence agency believes that Russia interfered into our elections in 2016. Including every single national security and intelligence official that President Trump appointed himself.

In other words, the Trump movement or Tea Party Nationalists, (as I prefer to call them) or how about the Trumpian Cult or the Cult of Trump, can't believe or won't acknowledge (at leas in public) facts that are right front of their own eyes or ears, if it is negative about Donald Trump. And this is the man that Jeff Lord who once worked in the Reagan White House as a speechwriter and pre-2016 or so had a great reputation as an intelligent, honest, very friendly man and part of the Center-Right in the Republican Party, now represents and speaks for. Who worked for CNN as a political analyst even though several CNN anchors had a hard time with him because they weren't sure if Lord actually believed what he was saying with some of his defenses for Donald Trump.

Jeff Lord has gone from being a Bill Buckley or Bill Kristol of right-wing political analysts. Someone who is respected on both sides and by most people in the country who follow politics and current affairs, because they're honest, intelligent, make their arguments based on this old fashion word called facts. And don't defend people just because they're on their side of the isle, to being an Alex Jones/Pat Robertson type conspiracy theorist. Who blame 9/11 on homosexuality, or blame lesbianism for feminism. "Russia didn't interfere into our elections! It was China because they wanted radical feminist Hillary Clinton to be President. Or it was an inside job inside the Democratic Party."

And my only question is for what. Why would an intelligent man risk his reputation as a serious political analyst to do that. He doesn't even work for Donald Trump officially and has been part of the Trump Organization in any capacity.
Source: HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Interview With Jeffrey Lord

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

The Rubin Report: David Rubin Interviewing Laura Kipnis- Feminism Has Been Hijacked by Melodrama

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Laura Kipnis- Feminism Has Been Hijacked by Melodrama

At risk of sounding flip here (which I risk almost all the time) I don't consider myself a Feminist, because I'm a man. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and in the private sector and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe in equal rights or equal opportunity. Being a Liberal or just a good intelligent person, is all you have to be to believe in equal opportunity. I'm a Liberal, I believe in liberty and equal rights for all. Men and women, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. So feminism and equal opportunity to me, aren't controversial, but commonsense.

Feminism is not controversial, but what's called radical feminism or what I prefer to call feminine supremacy, this idea that women are simply better than men and therefor women shouldn't be treated worst or equal than men, but better than men and if you don't believe in this you're a women-hating Fascist, this philosophy on the Far-Left in America is obviously very controversial. This idea that men, (well, straight men) are over masculine animals simply looking to conquer women. And that masculinity in itself is a bad thing (unless you're a man-hating dyke Lesbian, or just a Lesbian)  and the reason for all the problems in America and in the world, are because of men and especially Caucasian men especially in America.

So-called radical feminists or what I call feminine supremacists, hate everything that is masculine. They see straight men and straight activities like football, (just to use as an example) as promoting violence in America especially against women. What feminine supremacists don't seem to understand (and this is just one example) is that maybe 1/2 American football fans are women. You watch an NFL or college football game on TV or go to one and just about every other fan there and some games are women. So I guess a lot of women in America and probably most of them believe in feminism, (not including Ann Coulter) again that men and women should be treated equally, but most American women missed the last train on feminine supremacy and don't view men and masculinity in general, as some dangerous narcotic that must be wiped out in order to save society.

I know this is a Hollywood movie and everything, but if you are familiar with the 1970 social satire comedy Myra Breckinridge, Raquel Welch plays Myra a former queen Gay man who becomes a woman and not just a women, but what would be called today a radical feminist or what I call a feminine supremacist that saw her job as eliminating everything that is straight and masculine about men. Other than maybe the physical romantic relationships between straight men and women. Myra Breckinridge bombed as badly as a heavy metal concert in Harlem, or a country music festival in Compton, (not that it was a bad movie) but that movie perhaps has served for the 3-5 feminist supremacists who saw the movie as an inspiration for their feminist-supremacist movement in America.

Laura Kinpis described her politics as back in the day at least as a Marxist-Feminist. Well, that makes sense if you look at what's called radical feminism and what I call feminine-supremacy today. You're either totally in agreement with them, or you're part of the enemy and deserved to be destroyed. And have someone on Twitter who stalks you and has a nasty reply to everything that you tweet. Maybe if someone of these female-supremacists got a job and went to work, they would have less time for Twitter and our unemployment rate would go down even further.

Apparently Laura Kinpis has moderated from Marxist to just being a mainstream Socialist-Feminist, who believes in equality and complete redistribution, but not supremacy. Which goes to show you that there's hope for all radicals in America. If they just cut back on their caffeine intake, try to find hobbies outside of social media and looking at every radical article that is published and do this old fashion thing of thinking for yourself and looking at the world for how it really is and what people really believe. Instead of what the latest hot political celebrity is telling them as some type of God and viewing every word that person says as the golden truth who can never be wrong about anything. 

Friday, November 3, 2017

A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Source: A&E-
Source: A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

I doubt I'm the only person who has done this but for the last 10-20 years or so but I've been wondering why a somewhat normal seeming man like David Berkowitz would decide to go out and simply murder people in New York City or anywhere else. Not to look for justification for those murders and of course there are no justifiable murders. Murder by definition- the intentional taking of innocent human life by definition is a crime. The worst crime you could commit against anyone. Calling a murder justifiable would be like calling a cheeseburger a hot dog, a slice of pizza a peanut butter sandwich. Its simply not believable on its face.

But I've been wanting to know why would a somewhat innocent looking and normal intelligent man who had a good job and was able to support himself even if he was somewhat lonely and isolated, why would this person go out and decide to murder as many 10-20 innocent people and perhaps more. What would drive a normal productive man to go out and murder all of those innocent people for no apparent reason and why after being found sane and able to stand trial for his murders how would a serial murderer like David Berkowitz (the self-proclaim Son of Sam) avoid the death penalty. The death penalty is for people who murder multiple people and get some pleasure from that.

Again, this doesn't justify what David Berkowitz did and I' not anti-military or even anti-war, but David Berkowitz joined the U.S. Army right after high school in the early 1970s and discovered early on that he was very good with guns. He wasn't even in the Vietnam War but instead was sent to South Korea to join the forces there that was protecting the South from Communist North Korea. I believe Berkowitz discovered that he was good with guns and good at shooting people and perhaps even discovered that he enjoyed doing it. He gets an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1974 and comes back to New York City where he grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and discovers that he's alone and doesn't fit in where he grew up.

What the Son of Sam means to me and I'm obviously not David Berkowitz's biographer, is that he saw himself as the Son of Uncle Sam. This mythical character that is supposed to represent the U.S. Government and generally what most people believe and I'm one of them, represents what big government looks like in America. Americans who hate high taxes and over centralization of government, the War on Drugs, invasion of privacy, to use as examples. Not to say that Berkowitz hates big government, but I believe he saw it as his duty and was trained to murder people on the behalf of Uncle Sam as what he called himself The Son of Sam. Which is my little theory of why David Berkowitz did what he did.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism? Feminist Fundamentalists

Source: Sargon of Akkad-
Source: Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism? Feminist Fundamentalists

According to Merriam-Webster's definition of feminism. Feminism is the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. To put that even simpler feminism is the belief that women should be treated equally as men and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender.

Thats not controversial, because probably 7-8 out ten or more Americans believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. You polled Republicans (not including the Christian-Right) and you would get a substantial majority of Americans who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Its radical or fundamentalist feminists, as Sargon of Akkad calls them or even fascist feminist who believe you're either with them and that means 100% of the time, or you're against them. You either believe that men (especially Caucasian men) are ignorant bigots and sexist pigs who struggle to tie their own shoes, or you're part of the problem. You either believe women are superior to men and should have most if not all the power in the country, or you're a sexist pig (even if your'e a women) who hate women of all races and ethnicities.


Monday, October 30, 2017

The New Yorker: William Brennan- The Night Bernie Sanders Was President

Source: The New Yorker-
Source: The New Yorker: William Brennan- The Night Bernie Sanders Was President

How about we all go to Colorado and load up on marijuana. Cigarets, cookies, whatever it might be and just get as high as New York skyscrapers and Elvis fans thinking they just saw The King. Because that might be the only way an honest, sane, intelligent person, can imagine a Democratic Socialist from New York City, who has represented the Socialist Republic of Vermont in Congress for now almost 27 years, as President of the United States. The George McGovern of the post-World War II generations.

Looking back at it now I believe the only reasons why Bernie Sanders who isn't even a registered Democrat, but self-described Democratic Socialist (which is a little different) became the number one alternative to Hillary Clinton, who really was the most qualified presidential candidate at least since George H.W. Bush, has to do with how screwed up the Democratic Party is, as well as the broader American political system. Americans are fed up with the establishment and and fed up with establishment political candidates, to the point that they will look at any candidate, especially who is an official Democrat or Republican who doesn't come from the establishment.

Bernie Sanders whatever you think of him doesn't come from the establishment, at least in a political party sense. I would argue that at least in the sense that anyone who has worked in Washington and has served in Congress for now 27 years when January comes in a couple of months, is as establishments as oranges are, well orange, or politicians lie. But Bernie's politics are certainly not establishment. I mean, a Democratic Socialist who promises all of these so-called free services from government, because he doesn't trust the private sector to provide them and doesn't even believe in capitalism, is as anti-Washington as Libertarians are anti-socialism.

And again Bernie Sanders runs for President at a time when American hate politicians and hate how their government is being run and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Also at a time when you have roughly hundred-million Millennial's who don't like capitalism, or at least that is what they say, even though they buy and love all the products and services that come from capitalism. And not just with new technology and Hollywood, but fashion and everyone else that our capitalist system produces.

But Millennial's seem to believe that they're being screwed by capitalism. They have college degrees and yet they can't seem to find jobs that moves them out of their parents basements. They're drowning in college debt. And here you have at the time a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist who was originally from New York City (perhaps the capital of American Socialism) come in and say, "capitalism and the rich, are screwing Americans. And we need to destroy the capitalist and two-party establishment and do something else."

The reason why someone like Bernie Sanders (the George McGovern of today) who would be as mainstream in Sweden or Britain as soccer is popular, but in American politically stands out as badly as pornographers at a Southern Baptist Convention and seems to have landed in America from the Planet Utopia and playing Santa Clause (I guess a Jewish Santa Clause) with all of these gifts from Uncle Sam saying that all of these services are free, with a fat bill in the mail later on that most of us call taxes, but the reason why a Bernie Sanders can make a strong run for the presidential nomination for the largest and oldest political party at least in America, is because he came down from Planet Utopia and saw a perfect political storm.

The anti-establishment of anti-establishment political candidates running at a time when the establishment in America is as unpopular as New York Yankees fans at an Irish pub in Boston. With millions of Americans essentially jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and saying they hate the establishment too and they also love socialism (even though most of them don't know what it is) and are going to work hard for Bernie Sanders for President. And cheering and loving everything that Bernie says, because he's always promising free stuff and gifts from Uncle Sam. Apparently Socialists don't believe taxes are fees and bills that taxpayers pay for government services.

I'm not sure I can imagine a Bernie Sanders for President in America. I think it would have been interesting to see Democrats give him the nomination just to see how the Donald Trump Campaign would have played him, which is exactly what they would have done. Part of Donald Trump's rigged system theme was all about Bernie and how he believed the Democratic Party was treating Bernie. They wanted to run against Bernie regardless of what the polls were saying, because of what Bernie represents ideologically.

They could've run commercials essentially saying that America can't afford Bernie. Under a Bernie Sanders presidency, America wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because Bernie would gut the defense system.

You would see commercials like, "North Korea wants Bernie Sanders as President, so they can attack us when our defense is down."

Another commercial like, "under President Bernie Sanders, Americans would now have to work three jobs instead of 1 or even 2. One job to pay the taxes and two jobs to try to support themselves."

And these ads would work because you have millions of Americans who don't follow politics very closely and have a tendency to believe what people tell them without even considering the source of the information and whatever motives the person might have for saying what they're saying. Which is how you get the political system that we have in America where politicians are essentially in office to stay in office and get elected to higher office. Because if they even bother to try to govern they could risk losing political support.

I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders as President simply because I'm an American and I'm smart enough to know that Americans might say they like free government services, but only until they find out that those services aren't free and that their real taxes that come from those services. And even if a Bernie Sanders gets to the White House, that is probably as far as he would get. Because he would have a Congress even if Democrats control the House or Senate or even both chamber's, telling President Sanders no. Because they believe government is trying to do too much here, but also because they don't want to raise the taxes on people that they need in order to get reelected. But in a country that invented Hollywood Americans can imagine anything. Including a Socialist as President.
Source: Comedy Central The President Meets His Best Friend Bernie Sanders

Thursday, October 26, 2017

John Birch Society: Opinion- John F. McManus: 'Hugh Hefner and Moral Decline'- Hugh Hefner: A Champion For Individualism

Source: John Birch Society-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review Plus

Similar to Hugh Hefner like Ayn Rand, is an example of why the Far-Left and Far-Right in America are like an arguing fighting married couple who you would think are bitter enemies out the door headed for divorce when you see them, but who actually love each other. Similar to Al and Peggy Bundy, from the great sitcom Married With Children. Or Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, from the great movie Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. The Far-Right and Far-Left have both Ayn Rand and Hugh Hefner in common, as far as people they both not just oppose, but hate.

Hugh Hefner represents what the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and the Socialist-Left and in some cases now Communist-Left, hate about about America which is individualism and personal freedom. The ability for one to pick their own lot in life and live with their own decisions. Chart their own course in life and live the way they choose, not how Big Government decides for them, because they believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions. And that free adults are essentially children and mental patients, without the knowledge and judgment to make their own decisions in life.

I mean, H\ugh Hefner created Playboy Magazine. He didn’t create the lifestyle, but he made it mainstream, along with the Baby Boom Generation and the 1960s. Pre-Hefner and Playboy, America was still the 1950s Father Knows Best, honey, I’m home! America! Where Dad of course worked and where Mom stayed home. Women of course were allowed to work in America, but could be denied employment simply because of their gender, or lose their husband if they choose to enter the outside workforce.

Thanks to Hefner and others, in the 196os Americans finally saw the memo that America is about freedom and the individual. That Americans can actually make their own decisions in life and not have to live in Big Bother’s basement anymore and go out in the world and decide for themselves how to live and what the American Dream means for them.

That men didn’t necessarily have to get married, nor did women. That men and women didn’t even have to get married in order to have kids. That they could actually do those things together without getting married. Even if the Christian-Right labeled their kids as bastards. That women could build careers for them and then perhaps later on if they met the right man and wanted to, they could settle down and have kids. Instead of setting out to get married and have kids and soon as they’re out of college.

Not saying I approve of Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle and that lifestyle isn’t for men. But what’s great about America along with our diversity and equal rights and what actually makes America exceptional is our individualism. The right for free adults to be themselves. That even porn freaks and men who can’t get it up in a traditional way and fine just one beautiful sexy woman boring, have a place in America.

And of course the Far-Left hates Hefner not just because of his individualism and the personal freedom that millions of men and women in America finally felt that they had, but they believed Hefner was an exploiter of women because of the pornography that his magazine represented and even produced. Apparently unaware that American women actually have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to get involved, or in bed even with someone like Hefner and pose for playboy and other pornographic publications, or decide not to. I guess the Far-Left as much as they claim to be champions of feminism, apparently see American women actually as stupid and not able to make these decisions for themselves.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy, represent choice in America. The freedom for people to choose their own course and life and make their own choices. You don’t like pornography, don’t associate with it and keep your kids away from it. Freedom and responsibility, instead of Big Government making these very personal decisions for everyone else. Similar to guns in America, you don’t prosecute people for having guns, but shooting innocent people with those guns. Well similar to pornography and the playboy lifestyle, you don’t prosecute people simply for living a non-traditional lifestyle. You prosecute people when they hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Rape being and sexual assault, being excellent examples.

And of course the Christian-Right would argue that Americans have a right to self-defense under the 2nd Amendment. And I agree with that . And they would also argue we don’t have a right to pornography and to live our own lifestyles as we choose. Well, we do have the First Amendment which covers free speech and expression, free press. And we also have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as property rights under the Fifth Amendments. All three of these amendments cover a lot of ground and give Americans a lot of freedom to make their own personal decisions in life. And with that freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. Individualism, personal freedom, and responsibility, is what I believe Hugh Hefner represents.
Source: Scott Bradley Hugh Hefner and a Moral and Religious People

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

TruthDig: Robert Scheer Interviewing Norman Lear- Bleeding Heart Conservative

Source: TruthDig-
Source: TruthDig: Robert Sheer Interviewing Norman Lear- Bleeding Heart Conservative

As as Liberal myself I hate the term bleeding heart liberal, because someone who cares about others and people who are suffering regardless of their politics could be labeled bleeding hearts. Now, these different political factions will have their own ideas and approaches in how to help people who are suffering. But to care about the suffering of others all you have to be is a caring person.

But thats not my only problem with the term bleeding heart liberal. Because then there also the stereotypes that come with that term. Liberals all the time even though I believe that is finally starting to change with Socialists in America like the Bernie Sanders democratic socialist movement and the ANTIFA more communist or anarchist socialist movement on the radical Far-Left and not just Far-Left, but Liberals in the past at least have been labeled as soft, to put it lightly.

 I would add the term pussies, because so-called Liberals seem to believe that criminals shouldn't be put in prison, even if they're violent. As non-aggressive pacifists that even if the country was under attacked we shouldn't fight back and instead extend out hands to the people who are trying to literally destroy us.

Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was President of the United States during the Cold War and Russia literally attacked us and bombed Florida or some other big place in America. President Kucinich, "if we just talk to Moscow, maybe they won't bomb all of Florida and we'll only lose Miami. If we fight back, maybe they won't bomb Georgia as well."

There's nothing liberal or bleeding heart about pacifism about when your country is under attack and you choose not to defend yourself. No political label goes with that amount of irresponsibility and softness. Even Socialists have defended themselves and fought for their countries. And just like you don't have to be a Conservative or someone further to the Right to believe in self-defense and patriotism, you don't have to be a Liberal or someone further left to care about the suffering of others.

I guess this article is supposed to have something to do with the great Norman Lear. Perhaps the title of the piece has something to do with that suggesting that he's a bleeding heart Conservative. Norman Lear describes his politics as conservative because he believes in conserving the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.  Which is what true Conservative is and actually believes. Not someone who believes in sending law enforcement agents to break into private homes to break up extra marital or homosexual affairs affairs, because the so-called Conservative believes that adultery and homosexuality, are not only immoral, but should be illegal.

Imagine if Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore ever becomes President of the United States and his able to get appoint and get confirm 3-4 Christian-Conservatives who are actually Christian-Theocrats, to the U.S. Supreme Court , then maybe adultery and homosexuality would get outlawed in America. If they were somehow able to get those laws passed out of Congress regardless if with party or party's are in control of the House and Senate.

But someone who is so fundamentalist with their religious beliefs to the point that they believe should be appointed Minister of the United States and be able legally punish people who disagree with them and have different moral values, is not a Conservative, but a theocrat which is different. Norman Lear's conservative politics represents conservatism, pure and simple. Roy Moore's politics represents Christian-Theocracy, which is very different, because Moore's politics aren't about the U.S. Constitution, but a very strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Norman Lear's writing and producing of comedy in America, is so cutting edge and his belief in the First Amendment is so fundamentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that) that I don't believe he could be writing and producing comedy today. Because people in and outside of Hollywood are so dominated by political correctness that if Lear created a modern Archie Bunker (perhaps played by Donald Trump) maybe Jon Voight, or Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) you would see the Political Correctness Police and Army, marching the streets complaining about how bigoted the new Archie Bunker, All in The Family, and even Norman Lear is. Of course they would be wrong, but these protests and boycotts would have a big enough affect to keep that type of First Amendment comedy and programming from making it on the air or into the theaters.
Source: TYT Norman Lear On NFL Protests, Donald Trump's America

Friday, October 20, 2017

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever


Source: Vanity Fair-
Source: Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren't that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy's White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster's Sam Giacana's girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what's the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn't affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn't even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn't even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn't come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn't universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn't come around until the early 1990s and wasn't mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica's father and of course was married, but then the fact that he's President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't serious and shouldn't have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should've been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton't wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they're now in the 90s that they're going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I'm referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.
Source: TED Monica Lewinsky: The Price of Shame