The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Nick Di Paolo: ‘On Offensive Comedy and Political Correctness’

Source:The Rubin Report- comedian Nick Di Paolo on offensive comedy and political correctness.

“Nick Di Paolo (stand up comedian) joins Dave to discuss his comedy career, his problem with political correctness and so many stand up comics today, why he believes comedians should be at the forefront of speech and free expression, and more.” 

From The Rubin Report 

I think the great comedian Mel Brooks had the best comment about political correctness that I’ve ever heard when he said in 2017 that: “political correctness is killing comedy.” We’ve become at least with the left-wing such an uptight country now where comedy has almost disappeared ( unless you’re making fun of right-wingers ) that everything is taken seriously.

Comedy: “Professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh.”

Comedy is simply just making fun of people and situations that deserve to be made fun because they’ve done or said something stupid or embarrassed themselves. When someone tells someone that they’re as dumb as a brick. because they’re constantly speaking nonsense or can’t find their own hand in front of their face, they’re literally not saying that person is a brick. They’re saying they’re dumb as a brick and act like they don’t have a brain.

When people do redneck or ghetto jokes and I do that all the time, we’re not saying that call Caucasians are rednecks or that everyone with a rural background is a redneck. We’re saying that people from those communities who are rednecks are rednecks and speak a certain language and have a certain accent that perhaps only people from that community can understand. Who see Yankees and everyone with a metropolitan accent as foreigners and perhaps even invaders. ( Sort of how Trump voters who view anyone with black hair and brown skin )

When people do ghetto jokes and I do that myself as someone who went to an urban melting pot high school in the early 90s, we’re not saying that everyone from the African-American community are ghetto. We’re simply making fun of ghetto people and mimic the way they talk and act. But not labeling all African-Americans as ghetto.

There’s real-life and then there’s comedy. When your’e watching sitcoms or any other type of comedy, that is not actually happing, since they’re pretending and acting out. Real life is real, comedy is just an expression about the stupidity of life and what comedians are seeing from their own personal experiences and not meant to be taken seriously.

People who take comedy seriously are people who weren’t around and perhaps had an off day when whoever who has the job of passing sense of humors around was passing those around. And are the biggest tight asses in the history of the world and have redefined that term. When someone makes fun of you, the first thing you do is to see if that person has a point and self-examine yourself. If the joke is spot on, you have nothing to complain about and if anything should laugh at yourself and use the humor as a learning experience. If the joke really is off target, then you laugh it off or fire back or enjoy the rest of your life. But unless the person is calling you a racial or ethnic slur, you really have nothing to complain about. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress. 

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

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

Politico Magazine: Derek Robertson- 'How Howard Schultz Created a Personality Cult at Starbucks'

Source:Politico Magazine- Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and potential 2020 spoiler. 

"Ever since former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced his potential independent presidential bid, the feedback has been … mixed, to be generous. Democrats denounced him as a misguided election spoiler at best, and an entitled egomaniac at worst. Schultz hasn’t done much to dispel those characterizations, with a string of defensive statements and acidic attacks on Senators Kamala Harris’ and Elizabeth Warren’s policy agendas. It was a botched rollout that led to some fairly obvious questions: What is this man’s policy agenda? Why might he be running for president? Who was asking for this?"

From Politico Magazine

"Before he was a possible presidential contender, Schultz was the coffee giant's CEO. He first spoke to "60 Minutes" in 2006. For more, click here: CBS News."

Source:CBS News- Howard Schultz, before he was a narcissistic, wannabe politician. 

From 60 Minutes

I'm not interested in Howard Schultz's so-called potential independent presidential run at least for this piece, but more interested in what he created not just with Starbucks, but the broader pop culture in America. Starbucks, really since the late 1990s or so is not just just a coffee house, but it's a fashion statement and status update. Americans, especially yuppies and hipsters not just like Starbucks coffee, but feel the need to be seen liking that coffee and feel the need to have everyone know that they like that coffee and go to if not Starbucks on a regular basis, perhaps some other popular coffee house in their community.

Starbucks cups are not just coffee cups, but their fashion statements. Hipsters and yuppies feel the need to not just walk down the street holding their Starbucks cup or another coffee house cup, even if their cup is empty, but feel the need to be seen either on their phone or looking at their phone, even if they're not actually speaking to anyone or don't have any latest texts or voice mails that they haven't seen or listen to yet, while holding their coffee house cup at the same time.

Coffee house coffee whether it's Starbucks or any other coffee, is to America and American pop culture, what tobacco was in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s before Americans figured out how addicting and how bad tobacco was for you. Except coffee house coffee and coffee you get at your local bakery or on the street, is a helluva lot better for you than tobacco and alcohol even. So you have a lot of hipsters and yuppies in America who know it's not only cool to drink and be seen with coffee house coffee, but it's not nearly as bad for you as tobacco or alcohol.

Starbucks, is not just a coffee house, but like with new technology especially smart phones they are ways of living. It's a way of life for them and way for people to be popular. "Look at Joe and Mary, they not only have the latest smartphone that just came out an hour ago, but they're in touch with the latest celebrity news stories and scandals, addicted to reality TV, and are addicted to Starbucks coffee and coffee houses as much as we are. Even know every single Starbucks drink by heart. They must be as awesome as we are." Which is how Starbucks customers, hipsters, and yuppies want to be seen. And Howard Schultz, is a big reason for this coffee house culture that we've been living with in America for the last 20 years or so. Whether he deserves credit or blame for that, I'll let be the judge.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Newsweek: Katie Couric- 'Sarah Palin's: Five Biggest Gaffes'

Source:MSN- The photo says everything. 

"Former Republican nominee for Vice President Sarah Palin has made some huge gaffes during her political career. Here are the top five, including when she insisted that being able to see Russia from Alaska counted as foreign policy experience, and when she got caught reading notes off her palm."

From Newsweek

Similar to Michele Bachmann who said things like America should be less socialist like China, ( an actual Michele Bachmann quote ) it's hard to pick the five biggest gaffes that Sarah Palin has ever given. To use a sports analogy, she really is the classic case of not ready for prime time. It would be like a high baseball player even a star who gets drafted by an MLB club and is promoted to the Major Leagues the day he graduates from high school.

Source:Ranker- Bill O'Reilly, interviewing Sarah Palin in 2010 and trying to help her out 

Before Senator John McCain ( may he always rest in piece ) nominated her for Vice President when he ran for President in 2008, she was a mayor of a very small town in Alaska and Governor of Alaska for a 18 months. And before that she worked for a very small paper in Alaska. That's a huge leap to take coming from that rural, small town background into a race for the most important office not just in America, but in the world when you're talking about the President of the United States. Ten years ago, she wasn't ready for the spotlight and ten years later, she still isn't and probably no longer wants it given how quiet she's been even with her dream candidate Donald Trump ( another political reality TV star ) as President.

Source:Ranker- Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 

But if Newsweek can put together the five biggest gaffes that Sarah Palin has ever given, I can certainly comment on some of them.

Sarah Palin: "I can see Russia from my backyard."

When she said that to Katie Couric who was then the anchor of the CBS Evening News back in 2008, Katie asked her something like what makes qualified to handle foreign policy and what experience to you have there. With Governor Palin saying that she can see Russia from her backyard. Which would be like me saying I'm qualified to do home construction because I can see a lot other homes in my neighborhood. Or saying I know my next door neighbors very well, simply because  live next door to them. Governor Palin, obviously wasn't prepared for that question by her staff or she ignored their advice.

Governor Sarah Palin, getting caught looking at the palm of her hands for answers like a high school sophomore gets caught cheating on a test that he didn't study for and looked at a cheat sheet. Again, where is the preparation that could come from having a staff who at the very least is smart enough to know that their candidate needs to know what she's talking about before she gives an interview, but also know their candidate well enough to know that she actually might be dumb and immature enough to try to pull a stupid play like that.

Calling Joe Biden, who was her opponent for the Vice Presidency old in 2008, sort of speaks for itself. Especially since her running mate John McCain ( again, always rest in peace ) was not just 72 at the time, but 6 years older than Senator Biden. Perhaps Governor Palin, hadn't had the pleasure of meeting the man who appointed her to be his Vice President, before she called Senator Biden old. I doubt that, but I just thought I would throw that out.

Sarah Palin, represents to me at least the classic case of not ready for prime time when it comes to American politics. She should've never been in that position in the first place. She was the classic Hail Mary pick by a presidential candidate in John McCain ( once again, always rest in peace ) who was not just losing the election to Barack Obama, but was probably going to lose anyway and perhaps figured if he was going to lose the election he would go out with all his bullets being shot ( except for birtherism ) and nominate a VP candidate that the Far-Right of the Republican Party would approve of.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

TIME Magazine: Chris Bailey- 'Why Being Lazy is Actually Good For You'

SourceTIME Magazine- Good lazy?

Source:The Daily Review

"I’m a lazy person. This surprises some people, especially considering that I write productivity books for a living. Take a day off, for example. Forget adventures — my preference for that free time is to lie on the couch, watch Netflix documentaries and read. And a week off? I’m the kind of person who prefers to stay home and eat pizza rather than travel the world. Luckily for me, this laziness is precisely what makes me so productive. And that’s a fact backed up by science." 

From TIME Magazine

"I’m a lazy person. This surprises some people, especially considering that I write productivity books for a living. Take a day off, for example. Forget adventures — my preference for that free time is to lie on the couch, watch Netflix documentaries and read. And a week off? I’m the kind of person who prefers to stay home and eat pizza rather than travel the world. Luckily for me, this laziness is precisely what makes me so productive. And that’s a fact backed up by science." 

Source:Seeker- Bad lazy?

From Seeker

I see the point that Chris Bailey is making here. He’s not arguing that people should sit on their asses and do nothing all day expect to pick up their I-Phone to order pizza or other takeout, including groceries and then sit on the couch and watch TV all day. And then after we do that for a few months, we’re now sitting on our fat lazy asses unless we run out of money and decide to become productive again and go back to work. If he was arguing that, I would have no respect for that argument.

Source:TIME Magazine- Overworked?

What Bailey is arguing here is that of course people should work and productive with their day and their time, but that we shouldn’t be consumed with those activities and make time to just chill-ax. There’s time for work and then there’s free time to do nothing that’s work and substantive. When you’re sitting on your couch watching a movie or just watching the tube, you should just be doing that. Perhaps eating as well and hanging out with your wife or husband, girlfriend or boyfriend or friends, family, but not hanging with just yourself or your people while also working, flipping through your iPhone or computer. That there’s work time and then there’s free time and that you shouldn’t combine the two.

Source:Let's Get Going- From Chris Bailey 

 I’m sort of the opposite of Chris Bailey on this, but I think I’m getting better. I work at home in my office and I write one blog article a week, but when I’m not doing that I’, doing other things that are related to my blog. Like looking for other things to blog about for the next coming weeks. updating older posts, doing research for future posts, talking to other people about what I’ve written and what I’m going to write about in the future. And as I’m doing this I got the news on as I’m working in my office to keep up with what’s going on during the day and seeing if there is anything else I should be commenting on for that day.

And then when I’m done for the day which now is around 9PM sometimes 7 nights a week, but as I said earlier I’m getting better at this and no longer working pass 11 five nights a week, I’m ready for dinner and just sitting back and watching the tube. Which is generally the news and hearing about what happened that day and what’s the most important stories for that day. What I’m working on now is once my workday is over and I’m ready for dinner is to turn off the news all together and just watch movies or classic TV, documentaries and sports that have nothing to do with what I’m working on or about to start working on. What I’m trying to do is completely separate my workday from my free nights and time in general and leave the news for the rest of the world and get back into it when I’m back at my desk the next day.

As great as new technology has been without how convenient it makes life for so many people, to also has at least two negative affects. It makes people obsessed with new technology because of how cool it is and how tied it has become to pop culture. The more you’re into new technology and the more knowledgeable you are about new tech, the cooler you are and since we have so many people obsessed with pop culture and being seen as cool and we have so many faddists in America now, we also have a lot more lazy people in the bad sense, because we have so many people that don’t think for themselves. Who are experts on the superficial like who their favorite celebrity is dating, what rehab they’re at, or why they’re in jail, what’s the latest i-Phone, when it’s coming out, what you have to do to be one of the first 5 people to purchase it so you can share that on Facebook, like you just won the lottery or something.

And because of this we have a lot of lazy people in the bad sense that they don’t think for themselves, because they’re so into to what’s the latest fad and being seen doing whatever the latest fad is and right now one of those fads is not just having the latest i-Phone, but being on it all the time. People don’t even watch football games or movies anymore without staring at their i-Phone while they’re doing that. Because they feel the need to respond to every single text when as soon as they get it, or someone else’s Facebook update or tweet, or responding to what someone else to said on their favorite social network. We have so many people who simply can’t relax, because they’re mind is always focused on several different things at one point. Even when they’re just watching a ballgame or movie, having out at their coffee house, they got multiple things going on with them at the same time.

Myself, I would like to work 8-10 hours a day or even more, but when work is over it’s really over and I don’t even feel the need to tweet a photo or plus it on Google+, or Facebook about what I’m doing after work. I would like to give up my social network habit even on my phone once I’m done with work during the day and just eat a good meal and enjoy a good movie or documentary, classic TV before I need to go to bed and be ready for the next day. It would be nice to take Saturday and Sunday completely off and not doing anything work related then, but even when I’m on vacation I actually need to be doing some work because I’m a blogger and get a lot of email. That’s just the life of a blogger and perhaps anyone who works in the media at all. But during the day, bike ride, work, and then be free at night and live the good lazy life. Not the the life of a lazy ass, which is different.

New York Magazine: Michael McKeever- 'Watch a Private Eye Fact-Check Detective Movies'

Source:Vulture- NYC private eye Michael McKeever & Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep. 

“In Vulture’s video series, Expert Witness, we ask scientists, historians, and other professionals to give Hollywood movies a good old-fashioned fact-check.

Private eyes are one of Hollywood’s greatest legacies. From the likes stone-cold Philip Marlowe to bumbling clown Gene Parmesan, private detectives have long been a source of drama, comedy, and everything in between. But would a real PI really break through a window to get evidence? Would they really ride a bus to avoid being tailed? We talked to veteran New York City private investigator Michael McKeever to expose some of the biggest movie myths about private eyes.”

From New York Magazine

This video gets off to a perfect start for me at least in the first few seconds with a clip from The Big Sleep with Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart. Because you have Slim and Bogie together in the same movie, but when I think of great movie detectives I start with The Big Sleep with Bogie playing private eye Phil Marlowe in that great film noir movie.

Source:Gifer- Slim & Bogie in The Big Sleep 

Bogie plays a guy who is simply out to do his job and solve the case that he's working on and doesn't play the saint or devil in that movie, but a guy who is a lot more complicated than that who plays a no nonsense ( except for the great quips and wisecracks ) detective who is working on a case. And of course Lauren Bacall, is Lauren Bacall I would watch her driving a bus in a movie simply to watch her because she's Lauren Bacall and a chance to see her gorgeous, adorable, sharp witty self doing anything.

And I think Michael McKeever is right where he says that you can't assume the truth and that people are telling you the truth that what private eye and police detectives have in common is that they have to know what's going in the case and know about the important players and the key evidence, simply because it's their job. The detective profession is the last of the romantics and idealists where you would find people who are always looking for the best out of everyone and everything they see. Similar to reporters it's their job to know exactly what's going and make the best possible case about the case that they're working on and then to report to who they're working for whether it's a private citizen or organization or a detective lieutenant or sergeant exactly what they found out.

When I think of great movie detectives I think of Humphrey Bogart and James Caan who both played Phil  Marlowe, but in different movies. Bogie, played Marlowe in The Big Sleep and Caan played Marlowe in a not nearly as famous movie Poodle Springs from 1998. Where they both play guys who are simply out to do their jobs and aren't looking to change the world and are very unromantic with who they go about their business.

The great TV and movie private detectives go about their business and do their jobs. This is their assignment, this is the important facts and evidence, these are the important players in the case. And it's their job to find out what happened and how it happened and then report what they found out and turned up back to the people they're working for. My two favorite TV detectives are Joe Mannix ( from Mannix ) and Jim Rockford ( The Rockford Files ) for the exact same reasons.

I think the main problem with current TV private eye shows and movies is what Michael McKeever ( New York City real-life private detective ) is talking about which gets to realism. When you're talking about Hollywood they have TV shows and movies to sell and for them to do that they have to be popular and for them to be popular they have to be cool or awesome. And for that to happen their characters have to be cool or awesome with a lot of young viewers.

And for that to happen that means their shows and movies might have to look unrealistic with heavy usage of new technology, expensive style and taste, a lot of violence, the detective physically getting involved with one of the key players in the case, heavy focus on their perusal lives, etc or young hipsters won't be into the show or movie. Back in the day these shows and movies were less fashionable, but better simply because they were more believable and the actors and material was also much better. 

Lauren Bacall: On Hollywood Marriages

Source:Lauren Bacall- Hollywood Goddess Lauren Bacall on Hollywood marriages.

"In this episode of 20th Century Style Icons, we're going to "put our lips together and blow" as we examine the never-changing signature style of legendary Lauren Bacall."

Source:The Ultimate Fashion Industry- Hollywood Goddess Lauren Bacall. 

From The Ultimate Fashion History

Lauren Bacall's quote about marriage, pretty much sums up what Hollywood marriages ( which isn't the same thing as marriage ) are really about which is that they tend to be business arraignments and investments. That are done to promote the two people's involved career. "If Sally marries Joe or vice-versa, it could help their career and lead to bigger parts and be great publicity for them. Even if Sally and Joe met yesterday and perhaps have never heard of each other."

Which is a little extreme and I'm not implying that Hollywood marriages are Saudi marriages and prearranged and that the two people involved don't actually know each other ( at least a day in advance ) before they marry each other, but they do get advice from their handlers something to affect that if they're seen with a certain actor or actress that could help their careers. Or you'll see actors and actresses marrying directors, writers, producers, Hollywood execs in an attempt to build their careers and look better in public than they normally do.

There are marriages and romances that don't seem like Hollywood and are actually real. Kurt Russell with Goldie Hawn, is a perfect example of that. Kate Hudson, ( the daughter of Goldie Hawn ) has always seen Kurt Russell as her father and not her biological father, because Russell is the man who raised her and has been with her most of her life and they love each other. Jeff Bridges marriage to Susan Geston, they've been married since 1977.

If you see a Hollywood marriage reach double figures in years even 10, you could win an award for that perhaps end up in some museum as being part of one of the longest lasting marriages in Hollywood history. Hollywood marriages generally aren't built to last because they're not built on love and built by people who are married to just be married in many cases and there not built on love in many cases as well. And are told that if they marry this person that could lead to bigger roles in their career.

But these are just some examples of why Hollywood marriages don't tend to work out and why America has a 50% divorce rate with Hollywood being a big reason for it, but not the only one. Divorce is common in any industry where stress is a big part of that life and where the people in it value their careers really over anything else. The law profession is a perfect example of that, pro sports would be another one, politics obviously. Not just Hollywood but the entertainment industry in general like with music is another good example of that.

But also because married life can seem boring for people who are use to being seen all the time and are use to going out and not accustomed to being home even if that have kids. And are use to being around multiple men and women and are really just interested in having a good time. Married life can also hurt one's career in Hollywood especially if they're seen as somewhat wild.

And also because actors and actresses build their own brands and reputations and play characters that are very close to who they are in real life and feel the need to keep that reputation and play their Hollywood parts in real life and not just be who they are on TV and in the movies.

So Lauren Bacall's quote about divorce being about who gets the most publicity afterwords is spot on as far as what Hollywood marriages tend to actually be about. 

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

Marmar: The South Bank Show- Elizabeth Taylor: 1981 Interview

Source:Marmar- Hollywood Goddess Dame Elizabeth Taylor in 1981. 

"Elizabeth Taylor interview [1981]"

From Marmar

The term genius gets thrown out a lot and generally thrown badly and for a lot of incomplete passes ( to use a football analogy ) and gets thrown around by a lot of people who certainly aren't geniuses and if anything are lazy mentally. And they use it to talk about people who impress them and these people tend to get impressed easily. The word is misused a lot similar to how the word awesome is misused today and done for pop culture reasons. But Elizabeth Taylor's case, I believe genius fits her perfectly and not just because she's a great actress, but because of every other characteristic that comes with being a genius.

A genius: "Very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this:

According to Cambridge Dictionary

A genius is someone who is very great and possesses rare natural ability or skill especially in a particular area such as science or art. We all know or know of people that could be accurately labeled as geniuses who are different and standout in other areas and perhaps not as well as they do with their craft.

Anyone who is familiar with the filmmaker and aviator Howard Hughes knows that he was great at his business, but struggled to get close to anyone emotionally and preferred to be left alone. Richard Nixon, in a lot of ways was a brilliant man when it came to public policy especially as it related to foreign affairs and national security, but struggled to socialize with people and didn't like even shaking hands with other people.

Liz Taylor, was a genius in another way as an actress. Someone who was great at playing her parts so well that she made you believe that she was exactly the person that she was playing, but struggled in other areas of her personal life and could even come off as an idiot as far as how she lived her personal life. All the marriages and the different men in her life, the obesity, followed by alcoholism.

Liz, was great at doing the things that made her famous in life which was her ability to act and had a very sharp intelligent wit and could sum up things very well and accurately and do it in a humorous way, but struggled to make deep connections with people and relate to them positively and keep relationships with people she cared about and loved. Things that normal people, ( not to be insulting ) but people who aren't geniuses, but otherwise intelligent and talented do well in their everyday lives everyday.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

E True Hollywood Story: Dallas

Source:Angela Mary- The women of Dallas: Victoria Principal, Linda Gray & Charlene Tilton. 

“Dallas E True Hollywood Story.”

From Angela Mary

There have been a lot of great soap operas both in the movies and on TV. The big ones of course today are The Young And The Restless, General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, but back in the day you had great prime time soap operas like Melrose Place, Dynasty, One Life To Live, Guiding Light, and movies that were soaps like Where Love Has Gone with Susan Hayward and Mike Connors, Love Has Many Faces with Lana Turner and Cliff Robertson, Strangers When We Meet with Kirk Douglas and Kim Novak.

But if I had to choose one over every other I have to choose Dallas because it represents soap opera at its best, which is what I’m going to explain.

When I think of great soaps I think of dramatic comedy at it’s best where you have really serious scenes and situations, but people and characters who are exactly that who do crazy things and seem somewhat out of control and yet always seem to know what they’re doing.

Like the JR Ewing character ( played by Larry Hagman ) on Dallas. Where you have serious situations with serious people, but doing crazy funny things. Like two adult women getting into cat fights and throwing pillows at each other. Happened multiple times between Linda Evans and Joan Collins on Dynasty.

Or two grown men getting into a fist fight at a restaurant because they’re interested in the same woman, with one of them saying: “look, we’re both adults here no need to fight for her.” Even though that’s exactly what happens two guys getting into a fist fight over a girl the kind of thing that happens in high school, but on Dallas or on another great soap opera it happens between two middle age men in public at a popular restaurant.

Dallas, wasn’t a drama or a comedy, it was both because it was a soap opera. You had a lot of serious situations and serious people, but with crazy immature people doing a lot and saying a lot of funny crazy things. Like with Larry Hagman on the show, who was like an evil bastard, except he was so good at it and funny at it you almost had to like him or at least respect him because he was so good at being a bastard.

The 1980s was a decade of excess where Americans had a lot of money and seemed to be in a hurry to spend as much of it as they possibly could as if they’re was a national money going out of business sale and you have to spend all of your money before it becomes worthless. And Dallas perfectly represented the 1980s with the actors and characters that they had, as well as the writers. Similar to how Easy Rider perfectly represented the 1960s.

It also represented a time when network TV was not only great, but relevant as well and where people wanted to watch CBS, ABC, and NBC every night and not just for sports and movies, but for programs as well. And almost 30 years later after Dallas finally went off the air after 13 seasons Dallas is still the best soap opera ever. 

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

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

Source:The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin & Scott Adams on Donald Trump.

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) about his newest book “Win Bigly” about how Donald Trump used the power of persuasion to win the election, Trump’s negotiating strategies and tactics, the trend of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ the crumbling mainstream media, the Trump/Russia controversy, his predictions for future candidates and the future of Trump, and more."

From The Rubin Report

Is Donald Trump the best salesman we've ever seen in American politics as far as getting people to buy 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. It's not what the truth actually is that concerns him, because the truth is generally bad about him. It's 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. It's 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 he 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. 

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

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

Source: AlterNet- Man finding God? 

"Americans who consider themselves spiritual yet not religious are a fast-growing breed. They have even been subject to some mockery among atheists and proponents of organized religion alike. As Reverend Lillian Daniel wrote in a popular HuffPost column, "These people always find God in the sunsets. And in walks on the beach...

From AlterNet

"What is up! Today we're going to talk about Religion & Spirituality, and what they each are overall. We'll also go over why they are so important in their own ways, and which one means the most to our future. Enjoy!"

Source: Koi Fresco: Religion Vs. Spirituality- Don't believe everything you see or hear.

From Vishuddha Das

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.

It's 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 Anglo-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. ( As well as an explosion in the unemployment rate )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.

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

Source:The Rubin Report- Radical Feminist Laura Kipnis. 

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Laura Kipnis (author and professor) about her personal fight with Title IX, why she identifies as a “Leftist Feminist,” her take on modern day feminism, the effect of social media on the rape culture debate, sexual victimization on campus, and more."

Source:The Rubin Report

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.  

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

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

TruthDig: Robert Scheer- Interviewing Norman Lear: 'Bleeding Heart Conservative'

Source:TruthDig- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

"In the second installment of a two-part interview on KCRW’s “Scheer Intelligence,” television icon Norman Lear shares his political views with host and Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer."

From TruthDig

"TYT Politics Reporter Nomiki Kons at Twitter spoke with legendary television writer and producer Norman Lear about Trump's America, where the Democratic Party lost its way, the NFL protests and more."

Source:Rebel HQ- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

From Rebel HQ

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.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

You can also see this post on The Daily Journal, on WordPress. 

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

TIME Magazine: Julia Zorthian- 'This Is The Best Way To Recover From Failure'

Source:TIME Magazine- Move on and start over.

Source:The Daily Review

"Embracing the sting of failure may not sound enjoyable — but new research shows it’s the best way to learn from mistakes.

A study in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making found that people who ruminated on their emotions about failure were likely to try harder to correct their mistakes than those who made excuses or didn’t let their failures bring them down.”

From TIME Magazine

“Embracing the sting of failure may not sound enjoyable — but new research shows it’s the best way to learn from mistakes. A study in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making found that people who ruminated on their emotions about failure were likely to try harder to correct their mistakes than those who made excuses or didn’t let their failures bring them down.”

From TIME Magazine

I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend be one, but from what I know about the medical profession (which might only be enough to fill one paragraph) is that good doctors at least don’t try to fix the problems without first performing a diagnosis. They actually take the time to see what is the medical problem with the patient before they try to fix the problem. People get wrong prescriptions because their doctors given them the wrong diagnosis and recommend a prescription that might fix another problem, but not the problem that this patient is facing. People get even sicker or see their physical conditions worsen simply because their original problem wasn’t diagnosed properly and therefor not effectively treated.

Giving someone an aspirin to deal with a broken ankle might give the patient short-term pain relief, but still leaving the ankle broken and perhaps it even gets worst because the patient believes their ankle is recovering. That would be an example of an extreme misdiagnosis. Maybe the doctor was drunk when they looked at the patent’s ankle, or perhaps examined the head by accident, before recommending aspirin for the pain. But hopefully you get the idea.

Another way to look at failures and weaknesses lets say is from the perspective of an addict. Lets use alcoholic as an example. I’m not an alcoholic either, but from what I’ve read and even seem to some extent that the only way an alcoholic can recover is first acknowledging that they have a problem that they’re indeed an alcoholic. They drink too much alcohol, get drunk too much and perhaps to the point that being drunk is a normal condition for them. Which I guess would be an extreme form of alcoholism. So my only point here is to before you try to fix a problem or personal problems that you might have, you first have to diagnose the problem and know what the problem is. Once you’ve accomplished step a, you can work to addressing the problem with a recovery plan.

Right-wing author and radio talk show host Eric Metaxas who I agree with as often as Los Angeles sees snow in August, but who was on BookTV on C-SPAN in I believe September (some of us actually have hobbies outside of realty TV and social media and like to use our brains) made a good point about mistakes and even screw ups. And he essentially said that we’re all screw ups. Thats not the question or the issue. The question and issue is what do we do about them.

Do we ignore them and not learn from history and keep repeating the same mistakes and seeing our problems get worst? “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” Or do we acknowledge them, take them in and even absorb them and memorize that feeling to the point that it feels so bad not that we don’t want to be consumed by it and let our failures run our lives, but that we know the feeling of failure so well that we don’t want to feel like that again. Not about being pessimist or overly optimistic, but being in touched with reality so we know exactly what’s going on so we know what to do about it.

John F. Kennedy is  a political hero of mine, but one of the biggest reasons why is that he always challenged Americans to think and try to improve and move forward. Challenge the status quo not necessarily because the status quo was bad itself, but that we wanted us to be as good as we possibly can be. Which is one of my broad points here is that we all make mistakes and maybe Eric Metaxas isn’t completely right here and that we’re not all screw ups. I mean, if we were we would be nation of very stupid weak people who can’t seem to get anything right.

But Metaxas is right about at least one thing that we all screw up. And then the question becomes what was the mistake exactly and then figuring out what can be done about it. Unless you killed someone, including yourself and you’re not permanently paralyzed or are hurt so badly that you’ve been given a death sentence and will die in the short-term, whatever mistake you made there is a recovery plan to fix it. Or at least learn from it and do better in the future.

I’ll just leave you with this. For almost every problem short of killing someone and permanently paralyzing yourself, there’s a solution to that problem. It then becomes once you acknowledge that you have a problem and know what the problem is. For every mistake there’s a correction. Including horrible mistakes like running your business into the ground and going bankrupt, or making horrible investments that also lead to high debt and perhaps bankruptcy.

The alcoholism example is perfect here. Once you realize you are indeed an alcoholic and have a real problem there, you then can get treatment for it and recover. People have screwed up so badly in one profession that they can’t find any more work in that profession, but recover from that and prosper working in a different field. Take former White House Counsel John Dean who was part of President Nixon’s Watergate coverup who is now a successful author and columnist. A very successful writer now even though he was disbarred as a lawyer.

Step a, is acknowledging that you have a problem.

Step b, is knowing exactly what your problem is.

Step c, is putting together a recovery plan to fix the problem.

Step d, learning from your mistakes not to get overwhelmed by them, but so you know what went wrong and not to repeat the same mistakes. And then improving yourself so you do better in the future. Not about making mistakes in life. Of course we all do and perhaps have all made a lot of mistakes. The question is what do we do about them. Do we learn from them so we can do better in the future. Or ignore them and continue to repeat our negative history.

Newsweek: David Friend: 'Before Donald Trump Was President, Online Sex Videos, Bill Clinton & The Naughty 90s Changed America'

Source:Newsweek- The 1990s called and they want their people back.

"Two decades ago, on a frigid night just before the New Hampshire presidential primary, America first met Bill and Hillary Clinton as a couple.

It was January 26, 1992, a drowsier time when daily papers controlled the narrative of presidential campaigns; when CNN was the only cable news network on the air, and blogs didn't exist. Bill Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination and face President George H.W. Bush in November."

Source:Newsweek

"During this decade, the United States moved into a new era of domestic progress and evolving technology, but foreign conflicts and terrorism foreshadowed troubles on the horizon.  Join WatchMojo.com as we count down our picks for the top 10 defining moments in 1990s America."

Source:Watch Mojo- Name these three men. LOL

From Watch Mojo

Now that I think about it and this Newsweek article that was written by David Friend contributed to it and even though he didn't argue this himself, but the more I think about it the 1990s is the decade when Liberals won the Cultural War. Because there was one scandal after another both in politics and government, but in entertainment as well and yet America survived it and we prospered so much as a country in that decade with the end of the Cold War and the economic boom of that decade thanks to new trade, new technology, the deficit coming down and actually leading to a balanced budget by 1998. (Ask a Millennial what a balanced budget is and they'll tell you its a budget where everything is spent equally, because they've never seen one before) And a lot of Americans perhaps especially my Generation X, but Baby Boomers decided as a generation and country that its OK.

So what if a politician sleeps with women they're not married to and cheats on their wives. Thats bad for their wives and their children, but that doesn't affect me and its not my business anyway. Which I believe was the attitude about all of these scandals where it didn't involve people actually getting physically hurt or falsely accused. We go from the King of Tabloids who was Donald Trump (yes, the same man) in New York and all of his affairs with other women when he was married with kids at the time, to Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas who just happened to be running for President in 1991-92 and one famous affair that he had in that time period of the late 1980s and early 1990s with Gennifer Flowers.

To entertainment celebrities like Tommy Lee (from Motley Crew) and actress Pam Anderson and they having their sexual affair literally in public and making a video about it. O.J. Simpson was a real true crime story with two real murders involved and in that sense at least was a real story with real significance. Ao in that extent at least it was a serious story. But it was a tabloid story because of the main character involved, the other serious characters involved and where the story took place which was Los Angeles.

But go from the mid 1990s to the late 1990s and again with Bill Clinton who in many ways was a Hollywood character the John F. Kennedy with the cameras always on him with reporters writing down everything they hear and find out about him, but  then reporting it, unlike with JFK. With the Jack Stanton character from the movie Primary Colors (played by John Travolta) almost seeming too real. To Bill Clinton's last sex scandal from the 1990s involving him and a White House intern in Monica Lewinsky who is only two years older than me and 27 years younger than Bill Clinton obviously young enough to be his daughter.

But if that doesn't seem to be a big enough Hollywood story for you, how about the Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich who made it a priority of his to remove President Bill Clinton from the White House (one way or another) and was President Clinton's biggest critic of the 1990s, as well as one of his best partners as far as the legislation they were able to pass together in that divided government and continually bashed the President as being immoral for his sex scandals especially the Lewinsky scandal, gets caught having an affair with his secretary while he was married to another women. Newt Gingrich winning the title of Hypocrite in-chief. He closest he would ever come to being President.

America goes through all these scandals, the Christian-Right in America which has had more of their own share of sex scandals and other scandals in America (Jim Bakker, Jim Swaggart, etc) and yet they reach their highest point in America as far as political power and having a veto voice inside the Republican Party as far as where they have to be politically and get to decide its presidential nominees. The Republican Party wins complete control of Congress of 1994 winning back the House for the first time since 1953 which they would hold onto until 2007 and win back the Senate in 1994 that they would hold onto until 2001. Plus the GOP would hold at least 30 governorships and a majority of state legislatures in the mid and late 1990s and would hold all of that power other than losing the Senate in 2001 and win back the presidency in 2001, until the late 2000s when Democrats finally won back the House and Senate in 2006.

With all of this political power moving to the Right and even Far-Right in the 1990s, Americans as a people and I believe with Generation X completely coming of age in the 1990s being a big factor of this, we essentially decided as a country, so what! So what if free adults have consensual affairs with people other than their spouses. Thats a matter between them and their families. Not something that should be decided by government certainly and shouldn't cost people their jobs even in public office simply because they're in loyal spouses.

I believe the 1990s gave rise to gay rights movement of the 2000s, and movements that opposed the War on Drugs, privacy thanks to the War on Terror in the 2000s, becoming a big issue and concern with the belief that government was becoming big government in our personal lives. The Culture War was ending in the 1990s because of everything that we went through as a country and people being able to see all of these individual scandals that in the 1950s would have ruined most Americans if those scandals were made public and in many cases people would have faced serious legal consequences for them even if they were private and consensual.

Americans saw these scandals and saw a lot of people behaving badly and irresponsibly, but deciding that those affairs aren't mind and people weren't getting hurt physically, financially, or being falsely libeled because of what someone did to them, this is not something that I should be personally concern with. And just let the people who were affected by this personal behavior decide for themselves what and if should be done about it. Instead of big government stepping in. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

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