Kire Schneider Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Father of American Liberalism

Monday, December 7, 2015

Paramount Movies: Sunset Boulevard 1950- An Aging Silent Film Star Attempts a Comeback With a Hack Screenwriter

This piece was originally posted The Daily Review: Paramount Movies: Sunset Boulevard 1950- An Aging Silent Film Star Attempts a Comeback With a Hack Screenwriter

I don’t like using the word-perfect that often, because perfect is almost never seen and heard of, but Sunset Boulevard along with North by Northwest, is about as close to a perfect movie as anyone could ever see.

Great plot about a young almost wannabe screenwriter who at this point is desperate for work, so he can make his car payment. Whose on the run from repossessors and stops off at what he believes is an abandoned house only to discover that one of the top actress’s ever in Hollywood lives there. Which is how Joe Gillis (played by William Holden) meets Norma Desmond, (played by Gloria Swanson) otherwise they probably never meet each other. Joe Gillis, is considering giving up Hollywood and going back to Ohio and getting a blue-collar job. Norma Desmond, hasn’t worked in a while and the Hollywood studios no longer want her.

Norma Desmond, finds out that Joe Gillis is a Hollywood writer, struggling at that and owes three months back rent on his apartment, as well as a car he can’t afford. She knows he needs money, which is what she has plenty of and needs a job, which she has one for him. She’s not working now as an actress and doesn’t have any roles coming her way and decides to write her own script and get back into movies that way. And hires Joe to be his proofreader and to fix up her script so someone would take it and make a movie from it. Joe, is not impressed with the script so far, but believes he can work with it. Still has friends in Hollywood and has one his friends Betty Schaefer (played by Nancy Olson) help him rewrite the script and they work on it together.

Norma Desmond, is lonely and desperate to get back into movies and doesn’t want to live off her royalties and investments. She wants Joe to perhaps help her get back into the movies, but what I at least believe she’s looking for is male companionship and believes her script will get her back into movies. I don’t think it is ever clear that she thinks Joe Gillis, someone who she’s never heard of who can’t afford either his apartment or car and hasn’t worked in a while, is a talented writer and someone who has a future in Hollywood. Joe, needs a job obviously as well as money and I see them as basically using each other to meet their short-term interests. I don’t see them as a writing team that is going to write their own movie together.

Gloria Swanson, has just turned 50 at this point and so has her character in Sunset Boulevard. But Hollywood already sees her has washed up and way past her prime. Gives you an idea of how Hollywood sees the world different at least in the 1940s and 1950s than the rest of us. And in many ways this movie is pretty sad, because it shows how Hollywood treats its stars once they believe they no longer have any use for them and almost treat them like strangers and as people they don’t want to be seen with anymore. Gloria Swanson, is her beautiful and brilliant self now playing someone who s past her prime, but as an actress she still has everything going for her and is still the star of the movie. Bill Holden, is his usual charming and even funny self who mixes in clever humor in a very serious if not dark and depressing, but a great movie.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

NBA-TV: Kobe Bryant Retiring From The NBA After 2015-16 Season: Kobe Bryant's Time Has Come

NBA-TV: Kobe Bryant Retiring From The NBA After 2015-16 Season: Kobe Bryant's Time Has Come

Probably easy to say this now, but Kobe Bryant’s time to retire from the NBA has been here for a while. And it was really just about him finally seeing that and deciding to give up what has been one of the great NBA careers of all-time. As far as what he’s personally accomplished and what the Los Angeles Lakers have accomplished with him. At least arguably the team of the 2000s winning four NBA Finals and six Western Conference Finals. The player of the 2000s at least if not post-Michael Jordan. 2008 MVP, 11 times All-NBA First team. But the Lakers haven’t made the NBA Playoffs since 2012 and have been pretty bad since. Actually being the second best team not just in Los Angeles, but at Staples Center with the Clippers becoming a real force in the NBA. Yes the Clippers and you’re not seeing that, because you’re high right now. Either on Red Bull, or something illegal.

Kobe, has been beat up the last few seasons, because of age and so many miles that he’s piled up on the NBA court which takes a toll on anyone’s body even great players who accomplish superhuman feats. So Kobe I believe is late on this and the Lakers still aren’t very good and again looking like one of the worst teams in the NBA at 2-13 right now. Headed to their fourth straight non-playoff season in a league where 8-15 teams make the playoffs in each conference. All you have to do is be mediocre to make the NBA Playoffs and the Lakers aren’t even that right now. So as great of a career that Kobe has had and I at least believe the best player post-Michael Jordan, at least in the 2000s. But not the greatest Los Angeles Laker ever. Both Kareem and Magic are better, but it has been time for Kobe to call it a career.

I grew up watching NBA basketball in the 1980s just outside of Washington with the Lakers being my second team behind the Wizards, who were called the Bullets back then. And fell out of love with the Lakers when they signed Shaquille O’Neal and went to a more ball control half court style of offense. Which was common for most NBA teams in the 1990s. But I’ve always have a lot of respect for Kobe Bryant, because he was truly a great player and not just a great talent. He was a gentlemen and professional basketball player in an era of realty TV and pop culture celebrity wannabes who played basketball really just to get on ESPN Sportscenter, be celebrated online and further their NBA careers. Kobe, is very similar to Tim Duncan in how he presents himself as the constant professional who lets his game speak for itself. He was a great player who would have thrived in the NBA hey day of the 1980s just like Big Tim and will be surely missed.



Saturday, November 28, 2015

The Daily Conversation: Bernie vs Hillary On The Issues

Bernie vs Hillary
The Daily Conversation: Bernie vs Hillary On The Issues

The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton? Well which Hillary Clinton are you talking about. 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, hopefully not as Secretary of State. Don’t want 2016 to be about Libya for her, assuming she is the Democratic nominee for president. I actually like the 2015-16 Hillary quite a bit. She’s even now in favor of legalizing marijuana at least at the state level. Has publicly admitted that the Iraq War was a mistake, even if she privately knew that in 2006.

The 2015-16 Hillary looks like the Pragmatic Progressive. But I still prefer the Progressive With Results from Martin O’Malley. And if he can ever get a non-relative to endorse him for president and give his campaign money, he might still make a run for the Democratic nomination. Because he’s already accomplished as Governor of Maryland what Bernie and Hillary say they want to do, but have never actually accomplished anything.

With Bernie Sanders, like him, dislike him, hate him, love him, terrified of him and would never want to let him see your wallet and financial information for fear that all of your money would suddenly disappear after Uncle Sam takes what he wants from you, you have to at least respect him. Because here’s a real-life politician not a made up Hollywood politician, but a real-life human being and politician at the same time, (which might be a newsflash for a lot of Americans) who actually knows what he believes and says what he thinks. For the most part.

I mean free college, free health care, free health insurance, I think he’s at least smart enough to know that people will have to pay for all of their new government services and that of course they won’t be free. These will not be Christmas presents from their rich Uncle Bernie. But their Socialist Uncle Sam, or Bernie, who’ll have new taxes to pay for these services. Two guarantees in life, death and taxes, at least in America. And taxes are bills that Americans have to pay to get the free government services. Free government services is like trying to take a bath with dirt and playing football in the bathtub. It simply doesn’t exist for anyone whose a taxpayer.

Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders, to me at least looks like Bill Clinton vs George McGovern, or Jerry Brown, from back in Jerry’s hippie radical days in the 1960s and early 70s. Hard to imagine that once Bernie after he finally picks a number by how much he wants to expand the Federal Government in size and in money, assuming that ever happens, that he could beat Hillary anywhere outside of New England and San Francisco. And perhaps just Vermont and San Francisco. Too bad for Bernie that New York City is not a state, because maybe he could beat Hillary there.

Because Americans and even Democrats, are learning that to create all the new big government that Senator Sanders wants to create, the rich won’t pay for all of that. Their money will be in other countries even before some committee in Congress like Ways and Means, or Finance, looks at his proposals. So of course the middle class Americans will get stuck with the tax bills for all of these new programs. Hillary, is already scoring against Bernie in the debates on this. About whose going to pay to being Sweden to America. Hillary can say, “I have friends in Congress both in the Senate and House who I’ve worked with on these issues in both parties. And we can work together on these issues.” With Bernie it will an all or nothing approach that will die in Congress faster than a constitutional amendment to repeal both the first and second amendments.

Friday, November 27, 2015

The Richest: The Worst Black Friday Disasters

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Black Friday, the official start of the Christmas shopping season in America and as someone who has some experience working in retail I know how crazy it can be. It is that one day of the year where Americans can go crazy and not look crazy, because they must have whatever the current OMG product is out there. Generally having something to do with new technology. And if they don’t get that product, they’ll look like so old school, or 2014 or whatever the year is compared with people who already have that new smart phone, iPad, or whatever the hell it is. It is that one day of the year that people find great deals on stuff that they don’t need and buy it. To wake up the next day to figure out they don’t want or need whatever the thing is that they just found a great deal on. And besides, what they just bought is already old school compared with whatever the latest thing is.

It is that day of the year where people can camp out the night before so they’re in at Best Buy, Macy’s, or whatever the store is, the second it opens and be able to buy whatever they think they’re looking for at that second, to find out they don’t want it, or need it when they get home. Or perhaps its a present and they think to them self, “why would this person want this.” Black Friday, is 21st Century pop and valley culture gone wild, where everyone has that one day to be more like whatever their favorite current celebrity is until they find a new one the next day. Despite all the stupidity that comes from Black Friday with all the faddism that comes from it, as someone smart once said and I’m paraphrasing, but that idiots are useful. Black Friday, puts money in people’s wallets, saves people money if they spend their money wisely on stuff they can actually use and need and it also creates a lot of jobs. Things that we still need a lot of as a country.

For Social Justice Warriors, (speaking of useful idiots) Black Friday is not a racist holiday. It is not some racial slur at African-Americans and anyone else of African descent. It is also not some day that promotes economic greed and the weakness’ of private enterprise, capitalism and corporate greed. It is a great use to the American economy, because it creates jobs and keeps business’s successful. It puts money in average Americans wallets and saves money for a lot of Americans who spend the day wisely. Yes, private business’s end up doing very well on this day, but that’s called private enterprise and capitalism. And workers and consumers don’t do well when business’s don’t do well. These things go together. And someone not a fan of this system should explain what they would do differently. Perhaps try to find some state-run business that has real competition that does well on Black Friday. Or Rainbow Friday, or whatever the politically correct term would be for it.







Thursday, November 26, 2015

Julie Partney: Thanksgiving- A Politically Incorrect Guide

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To start off on a positive note before I send everyone to back the Great Depression. Actually, it won’t be that bad, but I just want to say Happy Thanksgiving to everyone who doesn’t view this great American holiday as a racist holiday. For the rest of you, please seek help and perhaps smoke a joint and learn to relax. But to the Social Justice Warriors, Canada which many Progressives or Social Democrats celebrate as some great utopian social democratic utopia, celebrates Thanksgiving. So who are the racists now? America, or Canada, perhaps both in a Social Justice Warrior’s peanut-sized brain. Thanksgiving, is not about celebrating the Europeans victory over the Indians. But celebrating what we all have to be thankful for.

Thanksgiving, is really one of those handful of holidays that we have in America where families get together and drive each other crazy. Leaving people to remember why they haven’t seen their uncle in a whole year. Perhaps brother, sister, aunt, in-laws, parents even. As well as to remember how thankful they are to have relatives that will drive them crazy. Not to get drunk and celebrate European victory over the Indians. This is a great holiday a day when Americans can feel proud to eat, drink, watch football all day, not bother to exercise. Not a day to celebrate the fact that Europeans conquered America and left the Indians to live on reservations. By the way, American-Indians are free to live with other Americans in America. European and otherwise.

Thanksgiving, is that great American holiday that actually brings Americans together in a very divided country. Where people who believe Barack Obama is destroying America, break bread with people who believe minorities are entitled not to be offended. People who believe that ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act its supporters such as myself, is a Marxist government takeover of the health care system, can break bread with people who believe the ACA is a good thing and will make the American health care system look like Germany. Where you have to cover your own health care costs, but get to choose how you pay for it with a market of different health insurers. This is not a holiday to jump into an American-Indian’s face and say, “ha! We won and you lost!” If there is one holiday that should unite all Americans that everyone can take one day off and just relax and enjoy themselves and give thanks, its Thanksgiving.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

No Cow Eyes: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher- The Power of Stupidity and Political Polls- July 1993


The Daily Review
Political polls do have a place in American politics. I’m just not sure it is a good place, because imagine what our government would be like if politicians just made decisions based on what they believed and knew what was the right thing to do. And then let their voters decide if they should get reelected or not. Instead of a politician taking a poll on what is the best shirt to wear with their jacket. Or what they should eat at political events. Political polls do have a positive place in America if leaders actually use them correctly. Because a politician who might actually know what he thinks about an issue can see where their public is and far they are apart. And then stick with their position, but now they knew who they need to bring to their side and communicate to them. Instead of just taking positions based on polls.

The early 1990s, America was under attack from bogus lawsuits. Seemed like every stupid person was smart or lucky enough to find a lawyer even from accidentally backing into one, because they didn’t know their car was in reverse when they hit the accelerator. And every stupid person that was guilty of hurting themselves, but not able to hurt anyone else, found a lawyer who could find a way to blame their stupidity on smart people. We had women who sued McDonald’s, because she spilled her hot coffee on herself in her car. I remember hearing about that one in high school. We had someone else sue a tobacco company because they were now addicted to cigarettes, even though the cigarette box had warning labels on about the dangers of smoking tobacco. Another lawsuit involving someone being obese suing a good company for their obesity.

What political polls and bogus lawsuits have in common, is that they are both for stupid people. For politicians to show voters that they care about them, as they’re laughing behind their voters backs with their hands pulling out their wallets and taking their money. The bogus lawsuits, are also for stupid people and greedy lawyers, because it gives idiots who actually might be embarrassed for being as stupid as they are, an opportunity for blame someone else for their stupidity and then profit off it.

“It is now my fault that I pored that hot coffee down my throat without first checking to see how hot it was. It’s also my fault that I spilled my coffee on myself in the car. That coffee should have never been that hot in the first place.”

That is the lack of logic that are behind bogus lawsuits where the person suing is simply stupid, or irresponsible, or both. And if we had better judges in America, these lawsuit would get thrown out.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Amet Reloads: Bill Maher & George Carlin on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher in 2001

George Carlin & Nobody
Amet Reloads: Bill Maher & George Carlin on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher in 2001

Not clear the date of this show, but it sounds like the early days of the George W. Bush Administration in 2001, when our long national nightmare was just beginning, to paraphrase former President Gerald Ford. You would think after being appointed President of the United States and losing the popular vote and arguably Florida as well that would have given the election to Al Gore and not being very popular when assuming office in January, 2001 and having a divided Senate and a House with bare Republican majority, that President Bush just might try to govern as a uniter. And not try to force his right-wing agenda that the country didn’t support on the country.

But you gotta give President Bush credit for one thing and that’s where his credit runs out. He told the country what he believed and what he would do and then he did exactly that. He really is one of the most honest president’s we’ve ever had. Which is sort of like being the tallest man in Japan. So what! But its true. That whole cliché that elections matter. That is so true with G.W. Bush. The country knew what they were getting when they voted for him, other than that little trillion-dollar debacle called the Iraq War. And they voted for him anyway. I don’t blame President Bush for being who he was. I blame the Democratic Party who both times had a candidate better than Bush, but barely lost to him twice. For not running good campaigns and taking Bush seriously.

It is one thing to be a bad president and good luck finding a worst one than G.W. Bush where you look at the State of The Union when he took office and where it was when he left. But that person still has to get the job first and beat the opposition. I blame Al Gore, for not winning his home state Tennessee and not winning Florida in a walk with the senior vote and coming off as rude with superficial voters in the debates. For not taking advantage of the most popular politician in the country who just happened to be his boss in President Clinton and using him to take apart the Bush Campaign. I blame John Kerry, for again not taking President Bush seriously enough as a politician. And not taking the swift boat debacle seriously and wasting a whole summer not moving past that. But more importantly, I blame fifty-million or so American voters. Who didn’t have the decency to be awake, sober and on their medication when they went into the voting booths in 2000. And voting for the wrong person.


Sunday, November 8, 2015

Meg Rifter: George Carlin- Maybe it's Not The Politicians Who Suck?

Non-Voter-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I partially agree with George Carlin on this. Our politicians actually do suck in way too many cases. I think that is obvious when you have a Congress that can’t get its basic responsibilities taken care of. Like gee I don’t know, funding the government that they are part of. Or paying the bills that has been run up on the debt, which is what a debt ceiling extension actually is. Not an agreement to borrow more money, just to pay the interest on the current debt. And you could add other examples of how members of Congress in both parties treat each other. Like the majority not allowing the minority opportunities to offer amendments and other examples like that. But just in case people who aren’t insomniacs actually read this, I don’t want to put everyone else to sleep with what is called in Washington Congressional speak. Language that only the House and Senate uses.

I completely disagree with George Carlin on his notion that non-voters have every right to complain. Sure, according to the First Amendment they do, which is all that they need. But for people to be taken seriously, they have to sound credible. And if you’re not doing everything you can to improve government and the least you can do is to bother voting, you can’t credibly complain about politicians who are on office now, because you were too busy complaining, or sitting on your ass at home, or at a coffee-house, perhaps watching celebrity TV all day, getting drunk, masturbating, whatever it might be and not voting. Had Democrats bothered to turn out in 2010 and 2014 anywhere near the numbers they did in 2008 and 2012, what Tea Party revolution? Republicans rely on low voter turnout to get elected and reelected. There are still more Democrats than Republicans in America. What Republican gerrymandering if Democrats held onto all of those legislatures and governorships in 2010?

I realize I’m coming at this from a Democratic vantage point, but here’s a newsflash. I’m a Democrat and I’m not saying this to put Republicans down, but Democratic voters don’t have much to complain about when they don’t vote for Democrats. Especially when their reasoning is that they don’t like Center-Left establishment Democrats and that the candidate, or incumbent is not in love with government and doesn’t have a new tax or government program to take care of everyone’s problems for them. Or is not as Far-Left as the Green, or Democratic Socialist candidate. Democrats, won back Congress in huge numbers in 2006, because Republicans didn’t bother voting. This works both ways. If you don’t do the very least that you can do to improve government and get the best possible people to represent you, which is bothering to vote and the person you most not rather see wins that office, whose fault is that? All the opposition did was show up and win and beat a party that didn’t bother to vote.

If you don’t like the current field of candidates, run yourself, or encourage someone who you think would be a good candidate to run and then work for that person. Assuming that you caught them when they were drunk, or high, or had a gun pointed at their head (that wasn’t filled with water) and agreed to run for that office. But a big reason why we have politicians who suck is because we have voters who suck themselves and maybe we should require all voters to pass a sobriety test, or eye examination before voting. But other reasons why we have politicians who suck is because we have voters in name only. People who are registered to vote, but who don’t bother voting at all. And as a result we get politicians, because of a low voter turnout who would’ve lost badly had we just had a decent voter turnout for that election. Who represent a small faction of the country and wouldn’t have won any other way.


Friday, November 6, 2015

David Gagnon: George Carlin On Politically Correct Language

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I probably agree with everything that George Carlin said in this video. Other than the word liberal. Replace liberal with illiberal and Liberals with Illiberal’s and we agree on everything here. Without Liberals, George Carlin isn’t able to make this video, because Liberals gave us our First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights. It is illiberal fascists on the Far-Left, who have the balls to call themselves Liberals, even though they have more in common with Karl Marx and Fidel Castro, than they do with Jack Kennedy, Tom Jefferson and even Wendell Willkie. Who actually were Liberals, because they believed in liberal values and not illiberal values. Illiberal fascists are the people who run the U.S. Political Correctness Department on the Left in America. While Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and even some Progressives, disobey all of their laws.

It’s not that labels and the truth that are the problem in America. Without them how would know what is real and what is make-believe. How would we know how to refer to each other. I guess we would have to wait for the PCD, or Political Correctness Department to tell us that. Perhaps Ben Affleck will play the Chief of that department in his next movie. Maybe Michael Moore will be his deputy after he’s done with his next film about how so-called White people want create a new American Civil War and kick out all the non-Europeans in the country. And even Europeans who aren’t of British descent and Protestant. Without the truth and accurate ways to referring to each other, we might as well all go blind and death. Because none of us will know what the hell is going on. The truth is never the problem, it is what leads to the truth that can be. People can only improve once they know what is wrong.

If a Muslim believes that women should be his servant and that the man is always in charge and that women shouldn’t be allowed to work and the whole deal, similar to how many Christian-Conservatives feel today and not just one Muslim, but that is mainstream thought in that culture and a non-Muslim and lets say a non-Muslim of European heritage points that out, how is the person who is accurately critiquing Muslims who believe these things a bigot? All this person is doing is pointing out some negative truths about some Muslims. If someone is fat and crazy, are you supposed to pretend they got a body of Hercules and are the sanest person around? And perhaps the worst thing about illiberal political correctness is how phony it is. (I’m being really kind) Because it is disguised as tolerance, even though it is the opposite towards people who disagree with them.

Once you hide the truth for fear it might offend people, you become a fascist. And once a society does that, they just threw the First Amendment in the garbage. And as a result the society will regress and become a regressive society and not even a progressive society that political correctness fans claim they want. Because the society will stop progressing, because people won’t know the truth about themselves and how to improve. “Joey, isn’t a bad student compared with the rest of the class, or is dumb. He just learns slower. And because of that we shouldn’t get him any help, or hold him back, because we don’t want to hurt his feelings.” And that is just one example of political correctness where students are promoted even if they don’t make the grades, because for fear of hurting their self-esteem. And is something that a progressive society and free society can’t afford if they want to continue to make progress.


Sunday, November 1, 2015

Movie Clips Classic Trailer Vault: 4 For Texas 1963: Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin Go West to Strike it Rich

Anita Ekberg, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Ursula Andress
Movie Clips Classic Trailer Vault: 4 For Texas 1963: Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin Go West to Strike it Rich

To be completely honest with you, I only saw 4 For Texas and really only like it because Anita Ekberg Ursula Andress are in it and both look great in it. Anita Ekberg, Marilyn Monroe without the childish immature baggage of Marilyn and yet physically almost as adorable and might even be sexier. Because similar body and yet she comes off as a grown up. The same thing with Diana Dors, who is probably comparison with Anita than Marilyn. Not as familiar with Ursula, other than as Cat Woman from Batman, but she’s also a gorgeous sexy baby in this movie. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, are both funny in this movie, but what else is new, especially when they’re together. And they both have goddess’s for girlfriends. Frank, has Elya Carlson (played by Anita Ekberg) and Dean, has Maxine Richter. (Played by Ursula Andress) Good luck finding a movie where either Frank and Dean weren’t in where they weren’t working with a goddess.

As far as the movie, Frank and Dean, both play bank robbers in Texas. Both going after the same hundred-thousand-dollars that is being transported by stagecoach in the 1870s in Galveston, Texas. Both have dreams of opening up their own casinos and going straight. (So to speak) The problem is they both want the same hundred-grand and don’t want to share it. Another problem that they have is that there’s this outlaw named Matson, (no first name given) who is after the same money. So Zach (played by Frank) and Joe (played by Dean) decide to become partners temporarily to knock off the Matson Gang. Again this is not a great movie, but because of the four stars in it and then add Charles Bronson and Victor Buono, the Three Stooges make a cameo and you’re talking about a very entertaining and even funny movie. But without Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress, I’m probably not watching much of it.


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone 1964: What Happens to a Family When They Lose Their Love

Mike Connors, Joey Heatherton, Susan Hayward
Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone 1964: What Happens to a Family When They Lose Their Love

I haven’t thought about this, until I just read it, but if you’re familiar with the great Lana Turner, (as an actress and goddess) and you’re familiar with Where Love Has Gone from 1964, the story about Valerie Hayden’s daughter Danielle Miller (played by Joey Heatherton) who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend, is very similar to Lana’s daughter Cheryl Krane, who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend Johnny Stompanato. The Stompanato killing, happened in real-life and both killings happened when the killer’s mother is involved in a dispute with their boyfriend. I’m not an expert on Lana Turner, most of what I’ve learned about her has been in the last two years. But she lived a crazy life as if she was always drunk or something and didn’t know what the hell she was doing. Valerie Hayden, (played by the great Susan Hayward) lives a similar life as Lana in this movie.

As far as this movie. Great movie! It is very dramatic, if not traumatic when you’re talking about a family that is led by a very overprotective mother, (played by Bette Davis) who is always making moves regarding her daughter’s life and makes those moves on her behalf and rarely if ever consults her daughter about what she’s doing for her. And as a result her daughter even though she’s this gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, sexy, intelligent, talented women, ends up being somewhat immature and irresponsible. Because her mother has a lot of control over her own life. She meets World War II U.S. Army hero Luke Miller played by Mike Connors and falls in love with and perhaps hoping she can find some independence from her mother. They get married, but now Mrs. Hayden, (played by Bette Davis) wants to control her daughter and her new son-in law. And has him blacklisted so he has no other choice, but to work for her company.

Again, this is a very dramatic if not traumatic movie and yet its pretty funny as well. And maybe that just because of Susan Hayward, who had this Liz Taylor quality of being able to combine drama, with comedy and humor. Who plays a very adorable and immature irresponsible women, who goes too far, because now she’s married to man who has just gotten out of the U.S. Army and fought in World War II. Whose use to giving orders, not taking them. Who doesn’t have any patience for the games and soap opera tactics of her wife and mother in law. This was never a relationship that was designed to work out. The Miller’s, get divorced, Luke is out of the picture and has no input with how his daughter is raised and Valerie (played by Susan Hayward) finds a new man before she dumps her husband and that is how her boyfriend gets killed. Because she has a fight with him with her daughter stepping in to end the fight and kills her mother’s boyfriend.

I think Where Love Has Gone, is also a very entertaining and funny movie, especially if you’re familiar with life of Lana Turner, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Gorgeous, adorable, talented and yet immature and irresponsible women. Whose always involved with the wrong man while having young daughter to take care of. In Lana’s case, Italian gangster Johnny Stompanato. Valerie, gets involved with a man after Luke Miller, who isn’t a good man and he ends up being killed by her daughter. Luke Miller, by most accounts is a good man, but he only gets back in his daughter’s life after she’s charged with her murder of her mother’s boyfriend. This movie looks like a great soap opera. With a lot of great drama, writing, acting and humor, which all great soap operas have and I’m a big fan of it.


Sunday, October 25, 2015

The Real Strategy: Opinion- Christopher Kemmett- Real Retards Vote- Why you Don't Want to Stop Them: The Case For Educated Voters

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.

As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.

You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.

We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there.
RT America: American Voters Disaffected With Political Establishment



Sunday, October 18, 2015

ESPN: An Audience With Muhammad Ali- From 1974

The Greatest Performer of All-Time?
ESPN: An Audience With Muhammad Ali- From 1974

Muhammad Ali, perhaps at his most popular and highest peak professionally in 1974. Now seemed more as a mainstream figure and perhaps less as a rebel, or some Black Power figure or something. He’s not the most recognizable and most popular athlete in the world forty-years ago and today just because African-Americans, Native-Africans and Muslims regardless of race, or ethnicity love him. He became more of a mainstream figure in the mid 1970s as more Americans especially got to know him, but he moderated as well and said less derogatory things about Caucasians and the establishment. And more people got to see how intelligent and the great comedic wit and acting ability that he had as well.

Muhammad, was certainly a member of the TV Generation and was perfect for it and came up during the perfect time for him. That is why he’s so famous, because he came up when network TV was so crucial and dominant and had the perfect personality for it. Someone who was very bright and knew exactly what he was talking about, but also someone who was very funny and entertaining and people simply loved him and still do for it. This is in late 1974 and he Muhammad fought Joe Frazier for the third and final time about a year later. And you hear Ali talking about Frazier, because that is the fight people wanted to see again. And Smokin Joe wanted another shot at Ali and regain the World Heavyweight Championship. And Ali probably wanted to beat Joe Frazier again.

Muhammad Ali as a politician? I hate to do this as a great of an athlete and in many ways as a man he was, I could see him as the Donald Trump of the 1970s or 80s had he not come down from Parkinson’s. As he said himself as a non-politician he was free to say whatever he feels and believes and even the truth. You can’t do that as a politician and expect to be reelected. You have to be more careful and target what you say and how you say it. One of the reasons why Donald Trump has never been elected to anything is because he’s unelectable. He’s done the best Mitt Romney impersonation you’ll ever see by being multiple choice on so many key issues. Muhammad was always better off being free and out of elected office and being exactly who he was. Not feeling the need to have to please people.


Sunday, October 11, 2015

Rick Wharton: HBO Sports: Thrilla In Manila Documentary: The Heavyweight Battle of The Century

Ali-Frazier III
Rick Wharton: HBO Sports: Thrilla In Manila Documentary: The Heavyweight Battle of The Century

I’m not a boxing expert and don’t pretend to be one and I haven’t followed boxing very closely for almost twenty-years now since the heavyweight division went into the toilet as if it was flushed down. But The Thrilla in Manila at least to me is at the very least the best heavyweight division fight of all-time. It represents the best and the worst of boxing. Two big strong men literally beating the hell out of each other. In a way it was like an Old West shootout where the last man standing won. But even Old West shootouts generally had winners. This fight was more like a divorce. Where there wasn’t real winner. Just a survivor who was slightly better off than the man he beat. This fight was only stopped, because Joe Frazier was literally blind at the end of it. Thats how much this fight took out of both men.

The Thrilla in Manila was the last fight in the greatest trilogy again at least in the heavyweight division. Which is the only division in boxing that I follow at all. Smokin Joe won the first fight in 1971 and Muhammad won the second fight in 73 and beat the man who beat Joe for the heavyweight championship in 1974, which of course was George Forman. So yes the third fight was again for the Heavyweight Championship of the World for the second time and Joe wanted it back. But as they said in this film The Thrilla in Manila was about the World Heavyweight Championship of each other. The right to say that they were better than the other. That they were the best heavyweight of their generation and of the 1970s. You could still argue about Larry Holmes, but they both would’ve had a good case had they won this fight.

The Thrilla in Manila looks like to me what it would have been like had Germany fought Japan at the end of World War II. Imagine had they destroyed each other during that war instead of getting their assess handed to them by America and the Western Allies and literally destroyed each other, but didn’t know how to give up. And kept going on until neither one had one fighter and one weapon left. That is what this fight was like. Two big strong men beating the hell out of each other until one literally couldn’t take it anymore and was literally knocked out, or gave up. That is why I say this fight represents boxing at its best and worst. Two guys in the primes giving everything they had against the other, but beating each other up so much that they caused real physical damage to the other.


Sunday, September 27, 2015

Jim Reid: The Man Inside 1958: Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance

Jack Palance & Anita Ekberg
The Daily Review: Jim Reid: The Man Inside 1958: Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance

Patrick (No Last Name) played by Sam Carter is a jewel thief who pulls off a big heist in (somewhere in Europe) Europe. Milo March (played by Jack Palance is a private detective hired to track down Patrick and the jewels that he stole. Trudi Hall (Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg Miss Sweden) is also after the jewels that Patrick stole. Milo and Trudi run into each other and find out they're both after the same score, but have different motivations and reasons for tracking it down. They also discover that people are after them, because they're after that jewelry score and decide to work together on this case. This is a fairly simple and I believe not a very well executed movie. But with a good plot and writing and besides it has Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance in it.

I saw a couple of Anita Ekberg movies this weekend. The Man Inside and 4 Four Texas that also had Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin in it. I know that a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this. But Anita is not the Swedish Marilyn Monroe and Diana Dors is not the English Marilyn Monroe. They were both better than Marilyn. Anita and Diana both grew up while remaining their hot baby-faced adorable goddess features with their great voices throughout their lives. Unlike like Marilyn who had a childish, or at least adolescent personality and maturity level to go with her baby-face up until the day she died in 1962 only at the age of 36. Anita, same generation as Marilyn lived to 83 and only died last year and look incredible her whole life and had a great career as an entertainer.


Sunday, September 20, 2015

Marmar: The Late Show With David Letterman: Dyan Cannon in 1991

Hollywood Goddess
Marmar: The Late Show With David Letterman: Dyan Cannon in 1991

Is it just me or did Dyan Cannon seem like she was on laughing gas, or something during this interview? Perhaps she just had a root canal and just came from the dentist or something. Maybe she went to a bad comedy show and took laughing gas there to be nice. So she would laugh at any bad joke that she heard. But that is what you get from Dyan. The adorable baby-face and personality that comes with where she’s always laughing and perhaps has even laughed at funerals before or something. (Now that’s cold) But she laughed at practically everything Dave said there. But this is why she’s great on shows like this, because talking to her is just like talking to a great comedian.

I was a fifteen year old high school freshman who was probably asleep when this interview was shown in 1991. I couldn’t tell you anything about the movie they were talking about even if I wanted to. Which I don’t because I simply don’t know what movie they’re talking about. But the idea that Dyan would have to sell which I’m sure was her beautiful Los Angeles home to make her own movie that only had a three-million-dollar budget, seems surprising to me. She was a Hollywood starlet for twenty-years at this point. Maybe she was going through another divorce where she owed her twenty-year old tennis assistant/beach bum ex-husband a lot of money in alimony, or something. But you would think a great successful Hollywood entertainer could easily finance a project like that.


Sunday, September 13, 2015

All Johnny Carson: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Dyan Cannon in 1977

Dyan & Johnny
All Johnny Carson: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Dyan Cannon in 1977

Johnny Carson, needed to be careful about having people like Hollywood Goddess Dyan Cannon on his show. Because she was probably as quick as he was off the cuff with the humor, or at least in the same ballpark. Who didn't need a script to crack joke and even do monologue. And as good as Johnny was at poking fun at famous people and he might be the best comedian ever at doing this, he wasn't exactly flawless. I mean he was basically the male Liz Taylor when it came to married life. Both when it came to his multiple marriages and divorces. He could write a book literally based on his personal experiences in life of what not to do when it came to married life. And Dyan knew these things and knew him very well.

Late night comedic hosts have to draw a line about who they pick fun at when they have guests on. I mean if they have people on who are experts at screwing up, sure! Making fun of them would be easy, especially if they don't know how to punch back, or even screw that up. But not many people would want to see that. But if they on quick-witted people like a Dyan Cannon who knows the host well and has had her issues in life that could be poked fun at like her multiple marriages and divorces, but can give it back as well then they'll end up taking clean shots on their own show. And perhaps even be put on the defensive. Johnny Carson, whether they were standup comedians, or not and Dyan's case, more of a comedic actress with a quick off the cuff humor and great ability to improvise, loved funny people. Which is why having Dyan on his show worked so well.

Johnny, also liked intelligent people and intelligent people who were funny. Frank Sinatra comes to mind, Burt Reynolds would be another one and Dyan Cannon would be close to, or at the top of this list. He would mention things to talk about and generally what was going on in Dyan's life and what she's interested in and they would simply talk about like two people who knew each other very well. With no script and would do it in a very funny way that would keep the audience interested and laughing. And even have Dyan with her adorable laugh laughing her head off for most of the interview which is what you see here. Dyan Cannon, was the perfect guest for Johnny Carson, because she kept him on his toes and made him think.


Sunday, September 6, 2015

Barry Kibrick: Dyan Cannon on Between the Lines: Life With Cary Grant

Hollywood Goddess
Barry Kibrick: Dyan Cannon on Between the Lines: Life With Cary Grant

I didn't get much out of this interview, but I can speak about Cary Grant and Dyan Cannon two of my favorite actors, as well as comedians of all-time. I bet they were laughing the whole time during their marriage just because of how off the cuff quick-witted they were and Dyan's case she still is. In Carry Grant's case I believe we are talking about the best actor ever and I mean actor as far as men. Perhaps the funniest actor and physical comedian ever as far as his delivery and improvisation. And in Dyan Cannon's case you're talking about one of the best actress's of her generation. People born in the mid and late 1920s and the 1930s. As well as one of the best looking.

Cary and Dyan, were together in the mid and late 1960s. Cary's career was slowing down and he had time to have a strong relationship with a beautiful sexy women like Dyan Cannon who was going to become a Hollywood Goddess and one of the top actress's of the 1970s and the 1980s. So I guess that gave Cary an opportunity to show a young beautiful baby-faced adorable actress like Dyan Cannon the ropes of the business so to speak and perhaps finally start a family with a women. Which is what Cary and Dyan did in the mid 1960s. Cary Grant would go on to live another twenty years after getting together with Dyan Cannon, but never regained the stardom that he had in the 1950s.

Dyan Cannon, has had some great roles in some of my favorite movies. The Last of Sheila, which she did in 1972 with another Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch. Shamus, in 1973 with Burt Reynolds, The Doctors Wives in 1971, Caddyshack 2 from 1988 which is a hell of a lot better than the original Caddyshack from 1980. And she's a women whose somehow managed to stop aging after she hit 30, or something and still looks incredible today with that gorgeous baby-faced, adorable personality and great sense of humor. Not the great career of a Liz Taylor, or a Lauren Bacall, but she's had a great career and has made a great impact on Hollywood and perhaps is still the best Los Angeles Lakers fan alive.


Sunday, August 23, 2015

Public Resource: CBS News Longines Chronoscope- U.S. Senator Richard Russell in 1952

Source: Public Resource- Bradford Hewitt & Paul Martin-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Senator Richard Russell, was one of the leading Dixiecrats in Congress for almost forty-years. He was the Chairman of Southern Caucus in Congress and led the opposition to every civil rights bill in Congress in the 1950s and 1960s. To be honest with you, as a Liberal Democrat, I’m glad he would a Republican today and that he is a big reason why Senate cloture rule was changed in 1975. So that instead of needing 67 votes to end debate, now the Senate needed 60. Because Senator Russell, was in Congress at the height of the civil rights battles in the 1950s and 60s. And those laws could have been passed faster without Russell and the Dixiecrats in Congress.

What is a Dixiecrat? They’re almost gone and out of the Democratic Party now if not gone all together. But today Dixiecrats are Southern right-wing Republicans. Both conservative libertarian, like with Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina and a whole host of so-called Religious-Conservatives in Congress, in the House and Senate. Senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, would be an example of a Religious-Conservative Republican in Congress. But from the end of the American Civil War, if not farther back, Dixiecrats were right-wing Democrats. Who believed in states rights and were strong Federalists, as am I. But they believed federalism gave the states the right to deny their residents access based on race. I do not.

In 1952, when this interview was done, the civil rights movement was really just under way. Even though it had already won a big battle in the 1940s with President Harry Truman desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces. Senator Russell, ran for president in 1952 and was a Dixiecrat. And a true Federalist and part of his federalism was that the states could handle their own domestic issues entirely. And even force their residents to be separated by race and allow for business owners to deny people access to their business based on race. And force African-Americans to sit in the back of the bus and go to rotten schools and you can go down the line. So the Dick Russell you see in 1952, is the same Dick Russell that fought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. And other civil rights laws and help for poor people of all races from the Federal Government.
Public Resource: CBS News Longines Chronoscope With U.S. Senator Richard B. Russell



Friday, July 17, 2015

Caleb Rojas Castillo: Video: Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America, 1998

Friend of Bill?
Caleb Rojas Castillo: Video: Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America, 1998

Lisa McRee, hosting ABC’s Good Morning America. Gee, there’s a blast from the past. She co-hosted that show, what two weeks. I guess when your network’s overnight newscast gets better ratings than your morning show, that’s a clue that you might need to change your morning crew. Diane Sawyer, saved Good Morning America and perhaps is the reason why that show is a strong competitor with The Today Show. Or at least while Diane was hosting GMA.

Hillary Clinton, is either the most gullible person on the planet. And would take the word of a known compulsive liar, when the liar says that fire is cold and water is dry and it snows in South Florida in July, or she’s just a bad liar herself. I mean, to say she believed her husband, who just happens to be Bill Clinton, perhaps better known as Wild Bill and Slick Willy, when he told her that allegations about Monica Lewinski were false, is hard to believe. I mean, Bill is her husband and it’s not like they have a long distance marriage and do not know what is going on in the other’s life. They’ve shared a bed at this point for over twenty years. Well they shared that bed when Bill wasn’t with one of his girlfriends.

When you’re a fly in hot water and you can actually swim, I know a little tough to consider, you get yourself out of the water and fly away. That is what Hillary is trying to do here. Lisa McRee, wants to talk about Lewinski. Hillary, would rather talking about the color of a brick wall, or how often someone should clean their garbage cans. Or how come the Chicago Cubs, haven’t won a World Series in a hundred years, or the price of Arkansas dirt, than talk about her husband’s latest affairs. So of course she’s going to try to change the subject from Lewinski and try to talk about her husband’s political agenda. Outside of saving his ass in the White House. And that is exactly what she tried to do here.


Saturday, June 6, 2015

Crooks and Liars: Opinion: Mike Lux: Two Kinds of Meanness: The Modern Conservative Movement

Crooks and Liars: Opinion: Mike Lux: Two Kinds of Meanness: The Modern Conservative Movement 

It must be snowing in San Diego right now, because I actually agree with Mike Lux on something. But he’s right about at least a couple of things about the modern Republican Party, as I would put it. Can you imagine what Barry Goldwater would’ve said had he heard Vice President Dick Cheney back in 2003, saying that deficits don’t matter? The Republican Party, still has that strong conservative libertarian wing, that I and Mike Lux I guess both respect. I for sure anyway, that is now led by Senator Rand Paul and a few others in and out of Congress.

But in Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater’s day, the Neoconservatives and Religious-Right, were still a growing force. But the Goldwater-Reagan Republicans and their supporters still ran the party. We’ll see what 2016 looks like and how big a movement the Conservative Libertarians led by Senator Paul are. But since 1988 or so, a Republican couldn’t win the presidential nomination without having the Christian-Conservatives and Neoconservatives behind him. They also couldn’t win the presidential election without these two groups as well.

Back in the day, the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives, the Pat Robertson’s and Rick Santorum’s of the world, were seen as extremists. As dangerous to the Republican Party. Now, the Santorum’s and Mike Huckabee’s of the world are seen as major presidential contenders. But, that could change in 2016 depending on how big a movement the Paul Conservative Libertarians have become. And has the GOP returned to some form of sanity and really gotten back to their conservative libertarian routes. The Patriot Act debate in Congress the last few weeks, suggests that the GOP might be ready to get back to where they were. And move away from their big government Republicanism.

Back in the day, the GOP was the anti-big government party. Not the, “we don’t like your big government when it comes to economic policy. So we’re going to replace your big government with our big government. And stick it in the homes of every American. And show them by force what it means to be a real American.” Back in the day, deficits and debt not only did matter, but they mattered regardless if the President was a Democrat, or Republican and who was in control of Congress. Back in the day, Republicans weren’t in favor of invading countries, simply because they didn’t like the dictator who was in charge of the country. The GOP, up until the last few years, have taken the opposite positions on all of these issues.

I don’t agree with Conservative Libertarians on everything, obviously. Otherwise I would be a Conservative Libertarian, instead of a Liberal myself. But I can work and talk to Conservative Libertarians, because we tend to have similar principles. That we both believe individual freedom, both personal and economic. That we need an effective, but limited government doing for the people what we can’t do for ourselves. And then the debates and discussions become about what exactly government should be doing. How they should regulate and what services they should perform. Instead of should people have the freedom to do this or that for themselves.

American politics would be a lot more fun and interesting today for me as a Liberal Democrat, if the Republican Party didn’t have their big government neoconservative faction. And their anti-government Libertarian faction, that has almost no role for government. Which is more extreme than the Conservative Libertarians, who aren’t anti-government so much as they’re anti-big government, which is different. And whatever you think of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they’re not anti-government, or even in favor of big government into people’s personal lives, for the most part. Certainly for Senator Paul, on most if not all issues. And maybe we’ll see the GOP in 2016, move away from both their anti-government and big government trends and become a responsible political party again.


Sunday, May 31, 2015

CNN: Video: U.S. Senator Rand Raul: The Right to be Left Alone is The Most Precious


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

First of all, the Patriot Act is going to expire at midnight in less than two hours from the time this piece is posted, because of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and his Neoconservatives in his caucus. They could’ve spent the last two weeks on either the USA Freedom Act. That was passed by the House with 388 votes. A huge bipartisan majority of Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats in the House.

Or, McConnell could’ve brought the version of the Patriot Act that he expires to the Senate floor. Opened it up to amendments from both sides. Including from Senator Rand Paul and Senator Ron Wyden and several other civil liberty minded Senators from both parties. Mike Lee, Pat Leahy, Jon Tester, Ron Johnson, Mark Heinrich and many others. What the Leader did instead, was to bring the Patriot Act up, knowing that he didn’t have sixty votes for it. And when that became reality, he decided to bring up an extension of the Patriot Act. To buy more time for the Senate to finally pass the bill. Translation, so he could lean on his own members to vote for a long-term bill. To keep the Patriot Act in place indefinitely.

McConnell, knows that if he opens up this debate to amendments, several of them will pass with bipartisan support. Civil liberties, is now a bipartisan issue in Congress. As we saw with the passage of the USA Freedom Act in the House and now with Senate Democrats and Republicans refusing to vote on the old Patriot Act. Because it doesn’t have those civil liberty protections when it comes to warrants. Under the Patriot Act, the government doesn’t need warrants to search people they see as suspicious. They don’t even need evidence, or at least share that evidence with a third-party. Senator Paul, Conservative Libertarian Republican and Senate Wyden, Liberal Democrat, both want the government to have to get warrants before they can search suspects. Which is really what the Fourth Amendment is all about. The protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The USA Freedom Act, certainly not perfect, but certainly an improvement over the original Patriot Act. And the Senate, could’ve spent the past two weeks debating the bill and voting on amendments and improving it. So the U.S. Government could protect both our liberty and our security. So the innocent are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. And government could investigate and prosecute real criminals and terrorists. Under the U.S. Constitution for one and the USA Freedom Act. But no! Thats not good enough for Leader Mitch McConnell. Give him a two-week extension of the old Patriot Act, that the House Republican Leadership has already said they won’t pass. Or give him the original Patriot Act without the new civil liberties protections. Which won’t pass the House, or Senate either.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

The Film Archives: Video: Kevin Phillips: The Triumph of Anglo-America: Religion, Politics & Civil Warfare


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

From this topic, I’m more interested in the founding of the American Federal Republic and American Liberal Democracy. Thanks to the American Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals and the liberal democracy that they built-in America. After they won the American Revolutionary War against the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy.

The Founding Fathers, wanted to break away from the British Monarchy, the British King and build a free society in America. The U.K., obviously had a problem with that, since the American Colonies were still part of Britain. The Founding Fathers, wanted their own free society and no longer live under dictatorial authoritarian rule under the United Kingdom. Where there was a state religion from the U.K. Where they were taxed heavily for services that they didn’t receive. And build their own country and created a Federal Republic that was going to be a free society.

The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, were very brilliant. Yes, they didn’t want this liberal democracy, liberal free society to be for everyone. At the time, just Anglo-American men who owned property. And they owned African slaves and treated the American-Indians like second-class citizens. But what they put on paper applies to everyone as far as our constitutional individual rights. And not just Anglos and Caucasians in general. And not just for men and men who are property owners. But the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, applies to all Americans. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or property status. And they created a brilliant form of government and free society, that is our Federal Republic and Liberal Democracy.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric versus Reality

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

What people need to understand about progressivism, is that it isn’t socialism. Sure, they are both about big centralized government, but progressivism isn’t completely about government. And doesn’t think individualism and individual initiative is necessarily a bad thing. Or that freedom isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Progressives, unlike Socialists in many cases, believe in all of those things. A true Progressive, doesn’t believe that government can and should do practically everything if not everything for the people. Socialists, don’t seem to have a problem that a new tax increase and government program can’t solve and do something new for the people.

Progressivism, was basically born in the late 1890s and early 1900s, under people like Teddy Roosevelt and later Woodrow Wilson and many others, as part of the so-called Progressive Era. These people who might have seem radical then, but today they would be mainstream Center-Left Progressive Democrats. And thanks to the Great Depression and with Franklin Roosevelt coming to power as President in 1933 with an overwhelming Democratic Congress in both the House and Senate, the New Deal was born. The American safety net and social insurance system. To help people in need help themselves and get themselves back on their feet.

The originally Welfare system was badly designed. Because it didn’t require people on Welfare to finish their education and even look for work. Unlike Unemployment Insurance where people have to look for work and even get help from the program looking for work. But the basic idea of progressivism is that government can help people when they are down get on their feet. And protect the innocent from predators. Either in the economy with the regulatory state. And put criminals way when they hurt the innocent physically and otherwise with the law enforcement state. And protect the country from foreign invaders with the national security state.

If you look at the economic options of the 1930s, the progressive economic approach was actually the middle ground. Which might sound strange even for that period. But think about it, you had Conservatives and Libertarians on the Right, saying that government shouldn’t do anything to help people who are down and stay out of the economy all together. To Democratic Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left, saying that private enterprise and capitalism is the problem. And that government should take over a lot of these sectors in the economy to serve the people. Progressivism, is not socialism, but a very mainstream American ideology.


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

RAND: Publications: Paul Sorenson: Mileage-Based User Fees For Transportation Funding

RAND: Publications: Paul Sorenson: Mileage-Based User Fees for Transportation Funding

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Mileage-based user fees to help fund new roads, might be worth looking at to fund and repair infrastructure in America. The more you drive, you more you pay for roads, bridges and everything else. The more you fly the more you pay for airports. My issue would be that workers who perhaps aren’t poor, but have to drive a lot either on the job or to and from work everyday and perhaps qualify for public assistance, or make just over that, could get stuck with large transportation bills every week. If there would be some relief for low and moderate income drivers and workers, I would be open to that idea.

What I think our infrastructure system needs is a short and long-term financing system for our infrastructure. One, to keep up with current infrastructure investments in America, but also to further invest in this country and build new infrastructure. And we need new funding to accomplish a short and long-term funding system for our infrastructure. Short-term, would be a long-term infrastructure bill passed by Congress and singed by the President. The current gas tax, is simply not adequate enough, especially with autos now running on other energy resources. So you need to look at other potential sources to fund our infrastructure.

A short-term infrastructure bill, could be funded through perhaps user fees and fees for using roads, bridges and everything else. But we could also tax things that people simply don’t need and bring health costs in America to pay for our infrastructure. Things like sugar, salt, tobacco, alcohol, to use as examples. As well as encouraging private companies to invest in our infrastructure, that they would get back by people simply using it. Driving and flying to use as examples. And that is where something like a National Infrastructure Bank would come in.

A National Infrastructure Bank, would be a separate independent non-profit public company, that would be in charge of prioritizing infrastructure in the country. By working with people around the country to figure out what infrastructure projects need to be worked on and built. And then go to the private sector to get the funding to pay for the projects. That they would invest voluntarily and get their money back and then some based on how often people use the infrastructure that they invested in. That would be my long-term solution to fund infrastructure in America and it would create hundreds of thousands of good construction and engineering jobs every year.


Sunday, May 17, 2015

Prison Planet Live: Video: Paul Joseph Watson: "Absolute Proof Liberalism is a Mental Disorder": Now What Liberalism Actually Is


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Actually, Info Wars or Prison Planet Live, the group I guess that Paul Joseph Watson works for, Alex Jones’s clan, is another way of saying The Onion. The difference being, that The Onion has a better record as far as reporting things that are actually true. Actually, Fox News reports more real news than Prison Planet Live and Info Wars combined. And if it wasn’t America’s liberal First Amendment, which is our Freedom of Speech for all you out there who don’t know what the First Amendment is, (God help you) PPL and Info Wars wouldn’t be allowed on the air.

They wouldn’t be on the radio or allowed to blog or anything. Because they have such a bad habit intentionally or just from being escaped mental patients of saying and reporting things that are simply not true. If they were operating in a much further left social democracy like Sweden, Canada, Britain or Australia, they would be put of business for reporting so many things that aren’t true. So they need to get down on their hands and knees and thank God for American liberalism. Because thanks to our liberal Constitution, they’re allowed to stay in business.

PJ Watson, or Paul, or Joe, or whatever the hell he goes by, talked about Sweden as this example of extreme liberalism. Where they take away a lot of someone else’s money to take care of people who simply aren’t productive enough and produce enough to take care of themselves. Another example of where he is wrong about liberalism. What this character is talking about and perhaps is not smart enough to be aware of it, is called socialism and a democratic form of it. Again, Sweden social democracy where the central government is expected to take care of the people. Perhaps the most socialist of any developed country in the world. And yes, they are a developed country.

Liberalism, is simply about freedom being available to everyone. Both personal and economic. That everyone has the opportunity to live in freedom and to be able to manage their own affairs in life. That it’s not the job of government to take care of everyone. But to protect freedom for the people who already have it. And expand freedom for people who don’t have it, but need and deserve it. Public social insurance and a safety net is part of that. But to empower people in need to get on their own two feet, while helping them pay their short-term bills to be able to survive in the short-term. Not taking from the successful to take care of the poor indefinitely.

Friday, May 8, 2015

My Vintage Video: The Capital Gang, March 27, 1993- Foreign Policy and The Clinton Budget


Source: My Vintage Video- CNN's Al Hunt-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

President Boris Yeltsin who certainly has his issues as President of Russia, looks like a good guy if not a saint, at least compared with Vladimir Putin today. It would’ve been nice had Russia been able to transition away from President Yeltsin and to someone like him. And continued with the economic and political reforms in Russia. And not of moved in a neoconservative if not Far-Right direction. That they’ve been on ever since Putin became President of the Russian Federation in the late 1990s.

As far as the Clinton 1993 budget, I agree with then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole. Who then was not only highest ranking Republican in Congress, but in the U.S. Government at least, when he said that President Clinton shouldn’t get that much credit for getting his budget plan through. Because he had an overwhelming Democratic Congress back then. Of something like 257 seats in the House and 57 in the Senate. And where the Senate Minority can’t block the budget and require sixty votes to pass it. Leaders shouldn’t get extra credit for simply doing what they are able to do and should do.
My Vintage Video: The Capital Gang, March 27th, 1993- Foreign Policy & The Clinton Budget

Thursday, May 7, 2015

My Vintage Video: The Capital Gang- February 20, 1993: The Clinton Deficit Reduction Plan

Source: My Vintage Video-CNN's The Capital Gang-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

This whole show was about the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. That was offered by President Bill Clinton, which was his first major economic bill as President. That was passed by a Democratic Congress by a total of two votes. One vote majority in the House and a one vote majority in the Senate. With only Congressional Democrats voting for the DRA. With not a single House or Senate Republican voting for it. You can make a case that the DRA cost Democrats Congress in 1994. But the plan worked with the budget almost balanced by 1996. With most of the new revenue to the Federal budget coming from the new revenue and tax hikes from the 1993 plan. Which was a combination of spending cuts both in defense and non-defense and a tax hike on the wealthy. And reversing some of the tax cuts from the Reagan Administration from the 1980s. The plan was costly politically, but it worked.
My Vintage Video: That Capital Gang- February 20, 1993: The Clinton Deficit Reduction Plan