CSM: Stephen Humphries- ‘How To Save Politically Mixed Marriages in The Donald Trump Era’

How To Save Politically Mixed Marriages in The Trump Era - Google Search

Source:CSM– Author Jeanne Safer: with a book about politically mixed marriages in the Trump era

Source:The New Democrat 

“Psychotherapist Jeanne Safer has parlayed her own experiences and those that have been shared with her into a book I love you, but I hate your politics: How To Protect Your Intimate Relationships in a Poisonous Partisan World.”

Read the rest ( if you can ) at CSM

Americans Unwilling To Marry Outside Their Politics

Source:TYT: Cenk Uygur & Ana Kasparian- ‘Americans Unwilling To Marry Outside Their Politics’– Different race, ethnicity, religion, culture, no problems! But marrying someone from different politics, that’s a whole new issue.

“A very low percentage of Americans are married to spouses that have opposing political views from then. The number of interracial couples may soon exceed those with differing politics. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

“Would you believe us if we said you’re about as likely to marry someone of a different race as you are someone from the other political party?

Buried inside a new Pew Research Center survey on political polarization is this nugget: Americans say they are overwhelmingly married to people with whom they agree politically. In fact, just 9 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats say their spouse or partner is a member of the other major political party.

By contrast, Pew estimated in 2015 that 6.3 percent of Americans in 2013 were married to a spouse of a different race. But that number is climbing. It was less than 1 percent in 1970, but about 1 in 8 marriages in 2013 (12 percent) were interracial.

Bipartisan marriages still far outnumber gay marriages — another fast-increasing kind of marriage, thanks to its nationwide legalization in 2015. Gallup data suggests about 1 million American adults are married to a spouse of the same gender; but that’s still less than half a percentage point of the entire U.S. adult population.”

I’m not one of these doom and gloomers who think America is going to hell and as a result we’re about to seem some new civil war in this country, but whenever I see stories that Americans aren’t even willing to be friends with other people, because they either support President Donald Trump’s nationalist philosophy or don’t, that leads me to believe that maybe America is in danger of it’s first civil war, at least since the 1960s, if not since the 1860s with the American Civil War.

I guess all of this would be easy for me to say, because I can be completely philosophical and theoretical as someone who is not married. So taking my advice on this, might be lack asking your plumber for a medical opinion about cancer or whatever the disease or medical condition that you want to learn about. But if successful marriages has anything to do with commonsense, ( and considering 1/2 American marriages end in divorce, that would suggest no ) I believe there are some commonsense suggestions that could help people who are married to someone who is pro-Trump or not, when you’re on the other side of that issue.

Suggestion one: don’t discuss politics that relates to Donald Trump at all, at least in a serious way. If there’s anything that both spouses agree on when it comes to Donald Trump where one spouse hates everything about him, but the other spouse likes PresidentTrump’s economic polices, but hate his tone, rhetoric, character, ( which is common with Trump supporters on CNN ) then maybe talk about what you both don’t like about the President. And if there’s anything that you both like about him, maybe you both find him to be funny and entertaining and neither one is a fan of political correctness, then concentrate on that.

Suggestion two which goes back to suggestion one: don’t talk about politics at all, or at the very least don’t make it personal and instead listen to each other and find out why your spouse believes what they believe. You probably still won’t agree with your spouse, but maybe you can at least understand why your spouse believes what they believe. And don’t make your political discussions personal, but instead intellectual and factual. But the better idea is to not talk about divisive politics at all and instead remember what you love about your spouse and why you married your spouse in the first place. ( Like your spouse’s money, body, business connections, or perhaps other reasons )

Again, as someone who has never even been married, ( knock on wood: maybe there is a God ) I think some of my suggestions sound like a local auto mechanic giving a lecture about brain surgery, ( what the hell does that guy know: if I ever want his opinion on anything, it will be about cars ) but if marriage has anything to do with life and successful life, then successful marriages are about commonsense.

For people who aren’t hardcore political junkies ( meaning they actually have lives ) getting through the Trump presidency even if your spouse disagrees with you on President Trump should be relatively easy.

But for people who don’t have lives outside of politics, I suggest you find that life outside of politics and remember that FNC, MSNBC, and CNN aren’t the only TV channels and you can do other things together and concentrate on what you have in common and why you’re married to that person in the first place.

Posted in The Donald | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

LA Progressive: Opinion- Ted Rall: ‘The Difference Between Liberals and Leftists’

La Progressive - The Difference Between Liberals and Leftists - Google Search

Source:LA Progressive– Liberals and Socialists?

Source:The New Democrat 

“Living as they do in a bipolar political world where politics consists of Democrats and Republicans and no other ideology is real, media corporations in the United States use left, liberal and Democrat as synonyms. This is obviously wrong and clearly untrue—Democrats are a party, leftism and liberalism are ideologies, and Democratic politics are frequently neither left nor liberal but far right—but as Orwell observed after you hear a lie repeated enough times you begin to question what you know to be true rather than the untruth. Sometimes it’s useful in this postmodern era to remind ourselves that words still have meaning, that distinctions make a difference.

Let us now delineate the difference between liberals and leftists.”

Read the test of Ted Rall’s piece at LA Progressive

Left or Liberal_

Source:PragerU: Dennis Prager- ‘Left or Liberal?’– Liberals vs. Socialists

“Tell the average American you’re a liberal and they’ll assume you’re on the political left. Yet, leftists and liberals hold very different positions on key issues. In this video, Dennis Prager explains how the tenets of liberalism like a belief in capitalism and free speech have more in common with conservatism than with the identity politics and racial resentment preached by the left.”

I believe the best way to look at the differences between Liberals and what both Ted Rall calls Leftists ( people who I call Socialists ) is to look at the differences between liberal democracy and social democracy: Liberal, believe in democracy, which is what liberalism was founded on and is all about. Democratic Socialists, ( let’s call them ) believe in democratic socialism/social democracy. If you understand the differences between these two ideologies, you then know what it means to be a Liberal and what it means to be a Socialist. Which would make you politically smarter than almost everyone else in America.

According to Wikipedia

“Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called Western democracy, it is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or un-codified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.”

So liberal democracy ( or liberalism ) is a philosophy based on individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, self-government, freedom of choice, personal responsibility, separation of powers, equal justice, equal rights.

Liberals do not believe big government knows best. Or that people are stupid and need government to run their lives for them. Or that capitalism is racist. Or personal freedom is dangerous. Or free speech is bigoted. Or European-Americans ( or what the Left calls White people ) are bigoted and racist. Or that women are superior to men. Or that ethnic and racial minorities ( people that Leftists call “people of color” ) are incapable of hearing anything that’s negative and even hateful about them and therefor deserve special protections from critical and even hate speech about them. Or that Communists and communism is actually misunderstood and that and communism is actually a progressive ideology and that it’s the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who are the real authoritarians.

So what do Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats or let’s just call them Socialists or what Ted Rall and Dennis Prager calls Leftists believe in?

Well, according to Wikipedia

“Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy has become associated in policy circles with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.”

Sounds very different from what Liberal Democrats believe in which is liberal democracy. And I’m talking about the Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, George McGovern, Bernie Sanders wing of socialism. Not these hipster-leftists who believe that Che Guevara was a good man and wear Che t-shirts and hats. But people actually do believe in freedom and even individual freedom, but want a national government big enough to ensure that no one has so much money and freedom, while other people have so little and have to struggle just to survive in life.

Bernie Sanders, is not ant-freedom, but anti-excessive wealth and wants taxes so high across the board to ensure that everyone has the basic necessities in life and that no one has what he would call too much. Which actually puts Bernie to the Right of people who I’ve already laid out about what hard-core Socialists or Neo-Communists actually believe in and that Liberals don’t believe in having to do with personal freedom and free speech, as well as identity politics.

Dennis Prager is right about another thing: Liberals and liberalism is misunderstood by not just the so-called mainstream media ( another way of saying popular media ) but also by people who call themselves Liberals or Progressives, ( who are actually closeted Socialists ) but people who in actuality are actually very illiberal and even regressive. To the point that they call people like Thomas Jefferson, ( the father of liberal democracy ) Wendell Willkie, ( perhaps the last Classical Liberal Republican ) and President John F. Kennedy, ( the last Liberal American President ) Conservatives, because all of these men supported individual freedom and believed in capitalism.

But that’s only because for one: they’re still afraid to be called Socialists and are still stuck in the political closet, but also because they’re so far to the left now ( and are too high or drunk to see that ) that Liberals now look very conservative to them. Just the way that the liberal parties in Europe and Australia are called conservative in America and other places, even those the so-called Conservatives in Europe like in Germany with the Free Liberals, but go down under to Australia ( pun intended ) and the so-called Conservatives they are self-described Liberals. The so-called Center-Right in Australia, is the Liberal Party. Because the Center-Left party there, is the Labour Party of Social-Democrats and Socialists.

So, if you’re actually interested in Liberals and liberalism and actually have other things to do than to stare at your phone at your favorite coffee house ( or wherever you decide to hang out at ) or want to know what rehab or jail your current favorite celebrity is staying at, then read up on liberal democracy, Thomas Jefferson, Wendell Willkie, and John Kennedy. If you want something other than a popular definition of the most popular and dominant political philosophy not just in America, but in France and Germany as well. An ideology that Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and other authoritarians, including Socialists around the world all hate, which is liberalism and liberal democracy.

Posted in Classical Liberalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Onion: Paul Ryan- ‘Lauded For Inspiring Millions Of Young Gutless Fucking Cowards To Take On Leadership Roles’

Paul Ryan Lauded For Inspiring Millions Of Young Gutless Fucking Cowards To Take On Leadership Roles - Google Search

Source:The Onion– Speaker Paul Ryan: the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin

Source:The New Democrat 

“WASHINGTON—Noting the former congressman’s deep, unwavering commitment to shying away from every one of his civic responsibilities, the Heritage Foundation lauded Paul Ryan Thursday for inspiring millions of young gutless fucking cowards to take on leadership roles.

“Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for showing countless milquetoast little weaklings across the United States that if they want a place in politics, they can have it,” said Heritage Foundation spokesperson Katherine Primm, adding that she was grateful so many young candy-ass pushovers had the chance to see someone just like them not just get elected but also become speaker of the House.

“Before Paul Ryan, you’d never see a spineless coward taking charge, but now, faint-of-heart boys and girls will finally have the determination to become leaders and then cower in front of more powerful people and bend to their will.”

From The Onion

President Donald Trump_ ‘Paul Ryan Was Not A Talent, He Wasn’t A Leader’

Source:MSNBC: ‘0:02 / 1:19 President Donald Trump: ‘Paul Ryan Was Not A Talent, He Wasn’t A Leader’– President Donald Trump: finally speaking the truth about someone

“Before, it was just the brave who led—but thankfully, that era is behind us forever.”At press time, thousands of newly inspired chickenshit Americans had reportedly begun fundraising for congressional runs in 2020.”

“President Donald Trump goes on the offensive against former House Speaker Paul Ryan at a White House departure.

Paul Ryan is sort of a tough one for me, because he really does represent what’s left of Jack Kemp Center-Right-Wing of the Republican Party: Conservatives who believe in economic freedom for everyone including for poor people and using public policy to help low-income Americans become financially independent.

But if you just look at the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin as a leader, it won’t take you very long, because there’s not much there. I mean if you had a leadership scale for political leaders with people like President Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin L. King being at the top, you wouldn’t see Paul Ryan from there. He wouldn’t even qualify as a political midget, he would be more like an ant who avoids getting stepped on by people like President Donald Trump, Representative Steve King, and the rest of the Far-Right political heavyweights in the Republican Party.

Even as former Speaker Paul Ryan and now corporate board member Paul Ryan, he struggles to take on a President that in his gut, ( assuming he has a gut: he’s so politically weak, it’s hard to tell ) he knows is not just wrong, but irresponsible and even immoral. But even with criticism about President Trump saying that he knows nothing about government, he must have had some suspicion about that going in. And also that statement would’ve been stronger and had he said that as Speaker and not as a private citizen who know longer has anything left to lose in politics, because he’s already lost everything.

You knew going to 2017 that Republicans were in for a rough year, even with a Republican President, Republican Congress, ( House and Senate ) because you had an unqualified and immoral President and a unqualified Speaker of the House in Paul Ryan, who was well-suited to a committee chairman, but had no business leading a party in the House that was dominated by the Far-Right, who he never felt comfortable with and was never part of. I don’t feel sorry for Speaker Ryan, because he didn’t have to run for reelection as Speaker, but just giving you a little background about why this relationship and leadership setup wasn’t even built to work, let alone last.

Posted in The Onion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vanity Fair: Opinion- T.A. Frank: ‘What Ross Perot Got Right About America’

What Ross Perot Got Right About America - Google Search

Source:Vanity Fair– Not sure is 1996 is accurate on this photo

Source:The New Democrat 

“When Ross Perot was winding down his presidential campaign in 1992, he played Patsy Cline’s recording of “Crazy” at his rallies. It was an embrace of the pejoratives and invectives hurled his way by Democrats, Republicans, and most of the press. Perot liked to agree with an accusation and then co-opt it to his advantage. “I’ve been accused of looking in the rearview mirror,” he said during one debate. “That’s right. I’m looking back at reality.” As a candidate, Donald Trump often did the same thing. “I do whine,” Trump said in 2015, after being accused of whining, “because I want to win and I’m not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

Read more from T.A. Frank at Vanity Fair

“H. Ross Perot, the colorful, self-made Texas billionaire who rose from a childhood of Depression-era poverty and twice ran for president as a third-party candidate, has died. He was 89. Here are some of the more memorable moments of his career. ”

On a more lighter note, first: when I think of Ross Perot, I think of a man who was brilliant at using political satire to make important points about politics and government, not different from let’s say a George Carlin, Robert Klein, Bill Maher, and other great political comedians.

And I have a great example of that: I was only a teenager still in high school in 1992 when Mr. Perot ran for President the first time in 1992 and it was at I believe the Townhall debate in Richmond, Virginia which is a 100 miles or so south of Washington and I think it was ABC News anchor Carole Simpson who asked Perot about his lack of political and government experience and is he ready to be President. Perot answered by saying that he doesn’t have any experience running 200 hundred-billion-dollar deficits and trillions of dollars in national debt. He said he doesn’t have and political spin doctors and he’s sure that shows up when he’s speaking. And doesn’t have any interns that prepares the charts that he uses when he goes on TV, that he makes them himself, etc.

Perot’s basic point that the question shouldn’t be how long someone has served in government, but what have they done with that government experience and how they have contributed to society in or out of government, that should determine whether someone is ready to be President or not. And that he didn’t have any experience screwing up government, unlike his opponents. Which was a very straight-forward and to the point answer to a serious and important question.

Perot, answering any question is very unlike to what you get from typical Washington politicians or politicians out of Washington, who might give you three different answers to the same question at the same moment in time and then amend what they said the next day about what they said the night before, because their handlers didn’t like what they had to say and believed it could hurt them politically, if they didn’t amend what they already said.

As far as Ross Perot’s legacy: if you think the two-party system was screwed up then and just not working for America back in 1992, because government including Congress struggles to pass even the most basic and essentials bills that they’re required to pass by law, because the two parties not just hate each other so much, but don’t even trust each other, look at it now where Democrats and Republicans don’t even talk to each other, even in private because they’re worried about being primaried by their Far-Left or Far-Right.

How often to you think do you think House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, even speaks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Majority Leader Steny Hoyer about anything and vice-versa. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, ( the two leaders in the Senate ) have to speak to each other just do be able to do the basics so their members can get floor time, but that night be the only time they speak. How often to you think Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell talk to each other about anything?

If you think the two-party system sucks now and I’m one of those 6-10 or more Americans who do, it looks like a self-check out line at a supermarket where you just get your groceries and then check yourself out, compared with the two-party system today. Perot, wasn’t ahead of his time back in 92, because he represented at least 20% of the country who just didn’t want a change, but they wanted something different from what either the Republicans and Democrats had to offer. And because he was a billionaire, he had the ability to offer that real change to the 20 million or so Americans that voted for him.

Posted in Independents | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Out Of The Past: Raquel Stecher- ‘Madame X (1966)’: Starring Lana Turner

Out of The Past - Madame X 1966 - Google Search (1)

Source:Out Of The Past– “The moments of love are the only ones that matter.” – Madame X

Source:The New Democrat 

“Directed by David Lowell Rich, Madame X (1966) is one in a long line of frothy soap operas that delivers a good old-fashioned sob story. This film pulls out all the stops and leaves nothing behind in an effort to put its viewers’ emotions through the wringer.

It stars Lana Turner as Holly, later known as Madame X. She starts out as a happy woman, still beaming with that newlywed glow, but over the years her life slowly spirals out of control and she loses everything; her family, her identity and her will to live. Holly is married to Clay Anderson (John Forsythe), an upstart politician with big aspirations for his career.

They live at the Anderson family mansion in Fairfield County, Connecticut with Estelle (Constance Bennett, in her final role), the glamorous matriarch who secretly hates her new daughter-in-law. Holly and Clay have a son, Clay Jr., and as Clay’s work takes him abroad, Holly finds herself alone and neglected. She seeks solace in the arms of playboy Phil Benton (Ricardo Montalban). When tragedy strikes, Estelle finally finds a way to get rid of Holly from the Anderson family’s life for good. Holly is given a new identity and a new life and any semblance of happiness becomes a thing of the past.”

Out of The Past - Madame X 1966 - Google Search

Source:Out Of The Past– “Holly is given a new identity and a new life and any semblance of happiness becomes a thing of the past.”

Read more from Raquel Stecher at Out Of The Past

Madame X - Trailer

Source:NBC Universal: Madame X 1966- Trailer– Constance Bennett and Lana Turner

“Lana Turner plays one of the best roles of her career in this stunning and emotional adaptation of Alexandre Bisson’s classic play. Turner is the ill-fated Holly Anderson, blackmailed by her evil mother-in-law (Constance Bennett) into leaving her politician husband (John Forsythe) and their baby. Twenty years later, she finds herself on trial for murder, where she is defended by her own son (Keir Dullea). (Original Title – Madame X) – 1966 Universal Studios.”

I guess I disagree with Raquel Stecher on a couple of points, but I believe she nails the rest of it: I don’t see Madame X as a great movie in a movie sense, I see it as a great soap opera, which is actually very different. Soap operas whether they’re TV or on the big screen are designed to be sensational and made for the tabloids and just not believable for most people who live regular, boring lives, at least in comparison with life in a soap opera, but might be completely happy with their lives and find them to be very interesting.

But compared with a woman who comes from very modest means ( to state the obvious ) and then marries not just up, but hits the jackpot and goes from living in basement one room apartment where she can’t even afford the rent, to now living in a penthouse, with a mansion as a vacation home, ( not saying that any of this happened in the movie, but that’s the type of background that Holly Anderson comes from and then moves into ) if you’re Joe or Mary Jones living on Main Street in blue-collar Smithville, Ohio, ( or some place ) even if you’re completely satisfied with your life and love your two kids John and Sally and live you live together with your family there, your life looks like a cure for insomnia compared with Holly Anderson. ( Played by Lana Turner )

For a movie to be great to me, it first has to be believable. Then it needs a plot that not only is interesting, but makes sense. It needs great, as well as clever writing where you’re thinking you hadn’t heard that kind of writing before, because it’s not cookie-cutter and copied from a popular film. You need a great cast, even if most of the cast is not famous.

Now, under my own standards for a great movie, Madame X is not a great film, but only because it’s not believable at least for most people with their own lives.

I mean the Constance Bennett character essentially buying off and kicking her daughter-in-law out of the country, because she’s about to be arrested for murdering her lover. And the fact that this is basically a political family where the son ( played by John Forsythe, the husband of Holly ) is being groomed to be President of the United States, who doesn’t have much time for either his wife or son, which is why his wife is having an affair with Phil Bennett ( played by Ricardo Montalban ) is a pretty good clue that the movie isn’t very realistic and when a story like that happens, of course it’s going to be a tabloid story like and real-life soap opera. But what the movie is about, the characters in it, the cast, all the sub plots, make Madame X a great soap opera and great soap movie.

Posted in Classic Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alfred Hitchcock: Strangers On a Train 1951- Featuring Ruth Roman

Ruth Roman - Strangers on a Train - Google Search

Source:Alamy– Leo Carroll, Ruth Roman, and Robert Walker 

Source:The New Democrat 

“Alamy
English Title: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. Film Director: ALFRED HITCHCOCK. Year: 1951. Stars: LEO G. CARROLL; ROBERT WALKER; RUTH ROMAN.”

I’ve been watching a lot of Ruth Roman movies and TV the last couple of months ( TCM, Movies TV Network, and YouTube ) because they’ve been on and I’ve had a bit of a crush on her since 2013 when I saw her in Untouchables episode. She has this Elizabeth Taylor quality, because she looks like her, especially with the beautiful black hair and cheeks, but not quite as adorable and more mature, as well as sexier.

I believe the best way to describe Ruth Roman is as a sexier and more mature Liz Taylor. Not saying she’s as good as an actress as Liz Taylor, but she does have this Taylor quality that makes you want to see her over and over again, hear her voice over and over again. Unlike the associate who waits on you at the grocery store, Ruth was not an ordinary woman who you would say: “just someone at the grocery store.” ( or wherever the place ) she is someone who stands out and grabs your attention.

Saw her in an old episode of Cannon with William Conrad last night where she plays the devoted and overly protective mother of the murderer in that episode, until she realizes that her son was the ringleader of these murders in their small town and then she turns him in. She was already 52 when that episode appeared in 1974, but you wouldn’t know that because she still had the beautiful black hair, the big beautiful sweet cheeks, and the sweet voice.

This scene from Strangers on a Train from 1951, which is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best, represents what I’m talking about here. She plays the fiancee of a young and up and coming pro tennis player, who is also a murder suspect that the local Washington Police is keeping an eye on. Bruno ( played by Robert Walker ) is the real murderer here and they meet for the first time in this scene.

“Strangers on a Train (1951) Howard St. John , Leo G. Carroll , Kasey Rogers”

Posted in Classic Hitch | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason: Katherine Mangu-Ward- Interviewing Dave Barry: ‘Dave Barry Is Running for President (Again)’

Dave Barry Is Running for President (Again)

Source:Reason Magazine– If you look at our current politicians and political candidates: why not comedian Dave Barry For President?

Source:The New Democrat 

“Dave Barry is the author of approximately eleventy billion books and the recipient of exactly one Pulitzer Prize. For four decades he wrote a weekly column, syndicated from his home base at the Miami Herald, and he is the author of an annual, despairing, hilarious “Year in Review.”

Barry’s books formed the basis for a short-lived show about his life, Dave’s World, and his novel Big Trouble was made into a film of the same name. It’s the story of a group of miscreants who wind up inadvertently stealing a nuclear suitcase and hijacking a plane due to their own incompetence. The film was set to be released—inauspiciously—on September 12, 2001.

In June, Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Barry to talk about his new book, Lessons from Lucy, America’s strategic helium reserve (which Barry last discussed with Reason in 1994), jokes he can’t tell anymore, and his perennial vaguely libertarian campaign for the presidency.”

Read more at Reason Magazine

The only thing that really makes Dave Barry different from politicians running for President, is that Barry is a professional comedian whose actual job is to make people laugh. Unlike our career politicians who sure, sound like they’re part of some Saturday Night Live political skit, or a movie that’s a political satire.

So if Donald Trump, can not just run for President but actually win the presidency and put America though this long national nightmare, or Mayor Bill DeBlasio who is not even popular in his own city, or a Socialist from Vermont can run for President from a major party, if Mitch McConnell, who is probably the biggest hypocrite not just in Congress, but all of Washington can run the U.S. Senate, then why not a professional comedian be able to run for President and we can see a Saturday Night Live comedy skit in real life.

Dave Barry Is Running for President (Again) - Google Search

Source:Reason Magazine– All aboard the Bernie Express

Source:Reason Magazine: Katherine Mangu-Ward- Interviewing Dave Barry: ‘

“America’s favorite libertarian humorist on fake news, Florida, getting woke, and getting old.

Dave Barry is the author of approximately eleventy billion books and the recipient of exactly one Pulitzer Prize. For four decades he wrote a weekly column, syndicated from his home base at the Miami Herald, and he is the author of an annual, despairing, hilarious “Year in Review.”

Barry’s books formed the basis for a short-lived show about his life, Dave’s World, and his novel Big Trouble was made into a film of the same name. It’s the story of a group of miscreants who wind up inadvertently stealing a nuclear suitcase and hijacking a plane due to their own incompetence. The film was set to be released—inauspiciously—on September 12, 2001.

In June, Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Barry to talk about his new book, Lessons from Lucy, America’s strategic helium reserve (which Barry last discussed with Reason in 1994), jokes he can’t tell anymore, and his perennial vaguely libertarian campaign for the presidency.

Interview by Katherine Mangu-Ward. Intro by Todd Krainin. Edited by Ian Keyser. Cameras by Krainin and Mark McDaniel.”

Posted in Reason | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment