The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Posted on September 1, 2017 by kireschneider
Attachment-1-929

Source: Independent Institute 

Source:The New Democrat

Libertarian Economist Walter Williams once said something that I actually agree with. He was talking about property rights and extended them to one’s self and one’s body. That the individual has complete control of their own body and therefor gets to decide what’s done with their body. What they can eat, what they can drink, what they can smoke, even who they can have consensually have sex with. Even if the sex is homosexual sex, taking money to have sex with someone else in a consensual way.

How we can spend our own money short of using our money to have someone beat up or murdered, or spending our money in order to have something stolen from someone else. And that includes spending our money to gamble even at casinos or private card games, to use as examples. That private property rights just doesn’t cover one’s home, or car, or personal possessions, like a business that they may own. But ourselves as individuals and our own bodies. Short of hurting an innocent person with our body or other property like money.

This is really the main difference between a liberal democracy like America with guaranteed constitutional and individual rights that include property rights as I just mentioned and living in a Marxist-Communist state like North Korea (to use as an example) where individualism is essentially outlawed. Where the state (meaning the national government) owns everything in society. Including where the people live and work, even shop.

Even social democracies like Britain that are very socialist as far as how their national government and economy works, have a high degree of property rights in their country. They just aren’t guaranteed especially under a constitutional system which is what we have in America. Property rights are the rights for individuals to control and operate what they actually own including their own bodies.

Our property rights are guaranteed in America under both the Fourth and Fifth amendment’s in the Constitution. That can’t be interfered with by the state (meaning government) without probable cause. That the state views what someone is doing as a threat to bodily harm or financial harm to an innocent person. Not talking about an anarcho state (meaning anarchy) where everyone can essentially do whatever they want including hurting innocent people. And then it’s left up to the victim to decide what should happen to their predator and left up to the victim to inflict whatever consequences on their predator.

But talking about a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where property rights including to one’s self are guaranteed short of hurting innocent people with our property. As much as so-called Progressives in America today (Socialists in reality) complain about property rights, private property, and individualism in America and that too much in their view is left up to the individual to decide how they should live, they take advantage of our property rights and free speech everyday. And you can say the same thing about the Christian-Right in America but their complaints about our property rights tend to be more about our personal freedom and our freedom to make our own lifestyle choices, instead of our economic freedom.

But that’s just one thing that is great about America that one doesn’t even have to believe in property rights and either personal or economic freedoms, or either of them in order to take advantage of them and live with them. People who don’t believe in free speech (just one property right) can use their First Amendment rights to make the case why censorship is necessary to outlaw speech that they disagree with and that offends them.

Because the censors whether they are political correctness warriors or Christian-Conservatives who are offended by certain forms of entertainment, have the same free speech rights as people who believe in free speech. Who are free speech nuts like myself, to borrow a phrase from Kirsten Powers and Jeffrey Lord. (Two political analysts at CNN) Just as long as we’re not using our free speech rights to incite violence or irresponsibly libel innocent people. That property rights extend to everyone including people who don’t believe in them.

The Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Private Property Rights

Posted in Freedom of Choice, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alan Eichler: Hour Magazine- Gary Collins Interviewing Lana Turner (1982)

Posted on August 31, 2017 by Rik Schneider
Attachment-1-923

Source: Alan Eichler- Lana Turner

Source:The Daily Review

There’s a reason why America has a 50 percent divorce rate. That reason is called Hollywood and broader Los Angeles and the LA area where probably 7-8 out of 10 marriages don’t last. Entertainers in Hollywood tend to look at marriage as business opportunities. “If I marry that person, I’ll be seen with that person which will lead to other opportunities, plus it will help my image.” Especially if they have a reputation as a playboy or playgirl who goes from romance to romance and not seeming very serious about anyone that they get involved with.

The best soap operas in Hollywood don’t come from the studios, at least as far as the shows that come from there. They come from real-life in Hollywood and the personal lives that a lot of actresses and actors live. Some if not a lot or perhaps most great comedians in Hollywood, aren’t actually standup comedians. But very funny people who are supposed to be serious actors and actresses, but who live very amusing personal lives. Who live crazy lives and do crazy things. Burt Reynolds is a great example of that, but only one example. Ava Gardner with her famous outbursts and temper tantrums, would be another great example of that.

Lana Turner’s last big role in Hollywood was on the 1980s hit prime time soap opera Falcon Crest. She was perfect for soaps not just because of her ability as an actress and she’s certainly one of the best ever, but also because she lived the life of a soap star and soap personality. She was married a total of nine times and married to one man (Steve Crane) twice. She was the girlfriend of Italian mobster Johnny Stompanato who her daughter Cheryl shot and killed at their home in self-defense. That would be a pretty good episode of General Hospital right there.

Lana Turner lived the real-life of a soap opera character which is why I at least believe she was perfect for soaps like Falcon Crest and could probably could have done other shows as well. Like Dynasty or Dallas, because she had the great dramatic appeal and comedic wit and timing that you need to be a great soap actress. But also because she lived the life of a great soap character. Lana Turner sort of lived the life of Jayne Mansfield, but lived well into seventies and manage to get her wildness and drinking under control to allow for her to live a long life. And Hollywood and the public are in debt to her for that.

Alan Eichler: Hour Magazine- Gary Collins Interviewing Lana Turner: 1982 TV Interview

Posted in Baby Lana, Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Milton Friedman: ‘What is Actually Wrong With Socialism?’

Posted on August 30, 2017 by Ederik Schneider
Milton Friedman_ What is Actually Wrong with Socialism_

Source:Daily Idea– Richard Heffner, interviewing Professor Milton Friedman, on PBS’s The Open Mind, in 1975.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Milton Friedman: What is Actually Wrong with Socialism?
Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, was one of the most recognizable and influential proponents of liberty and markets in the 20th century, and the leader of the Chicago School of economics.

In this video from 1956 he talks about the dangers of socialism and what is wrong about it.”

From Daily Idea

What is wrong with socialism? Where should I start? First I guess I’ll tell you what actually seems to work about socialism in other countries and to a certain extent in America even. Even though America has more of a pragmatic progressive approach to social welfare, instead of the welfare state approach that you see in Britain and Scandinavia where their social programs are universal instead of just for people who truly need extra financial assistance in order to pay their bills.

But there’s a flip side to what actually works about socialism in let’s say Scandinavia to use as an example. If Scandinavia were a country instead of a region that includes Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and even Iceland, if you include Iceland as part of this broader Nordic region of countries, Scandinavia would be one of the largest countries in the world, especially if you throw in Greenland, as far as territory. But with only twenty-five-million people which would make a fairly small country in population.

That is important because Sweden, Norway, and Finland, are all large countries as far as territory. Sweden is almost as big as Turkey as far as land and most people I believe don’t realize that, but Sweden only has ten-million people and they’re one of the wealthiest countries in the world as far as per-capita income and over living standards and there also one of the most socialist countries in the world as far as what their national government spend on their’s people’s behalf and the amount of money the Swedish Government spends on social welfare. Turkey on the other hand as over seventy million people making it a big country as far as land and population. Why is that?

Scandinavia is deep as far as natural resources including oil and gas. Norway and Sweden, are two of the largest oil and gas producers in the world and they both have very small populations, but with a lot of territory. Because of all the oil and gas revenue that Sweden and Norway bring in through taxation and interest their government’s have in their energy sectors, they can afford to be very socialist with their people. Because even when they go through an economic downturn or slowdown they’re still bringing in all of that energy revenue.

Unlike America which is third largest country in the world in territory, only behind Russia and Canada and with the fourth largest population in the world, we are still importing both oil and gas. We have to be more conservative with our tax revenue and expect our people to do more for themselves. Especially mentally and physically able people. That was my more positive take on socialism.

Again, what’s wrong with socialism? Where should I start? How about with the presumptions that Socialists especially in America who want America to look more like Europe tend to make.

Socialists tend to look at the world as a big complicated place and that if you let all of the people enter the world with the freedom to make their own decisions, some people might make some really good decisions and do really well, but others and perhaps a lot of other people will make some really bad choices and do badly. Leaving the society having to pick up the slack for the people who haven’t done well in the economy.

So according to the Socialist you need to have a big centralized government with all of these progressive minded (as they see it) intellectuals in their central- planning offices, with the power to decide for everyone else most of those people they’ve never even met let alone know, what the people need to live well in their Socialist Utopia.

In other words a big welfare state there to take care of everyone so the people don’t have to make impossible decisions like where to send their kids to school. Where to get their health care. Where to get their health insurance. Who should take cake of their kids when the parents are working. How people should fund their retirements. Pay for their family and medical leave. And these are just examples. Perhaps even where to live and where to work.

And then Socialists will say that: “Hey, it works in Scandinavia and Europe, that means it will work in America as well.” Socialists also tend to see the world as one place where there aren’t many differences economically between one country or another and that if something seems to work in country, that means it will work everywhere else. Forgetting about cultural and economic factors from one country to another.

Like the fact that some countries have deeper natural resources than others. Or that Americans tend to be a lot more individualistic and freethinking than most other countries regardless of race and ethnicity and tend to want to do more for ourselves and expect more from ourselves than Canadians and Europeans tend to.

But I already explained why the democratic form of socialism seems to work in Scandinavia. Because you’re talking about small countries as far as population, but large countries as far as territory and natural resources. Including natural resources to power their countries that so-called Progressives in America (Socialists in actuality) tend to hate and want to see outlawed in America. Like oil and gas.

The reasons why socialism wouldn’t work in America, again has to do with cultural more than anything else. Americans by enlarge (except for Bernie Sanders and his supporters and others) like being able to take care of themselves and making their own decisions and then being rewarded for those decisions when they do well. You start taxing income and production at high levels and you’ll get less of it. Because Americans will say why should they work so hard and be so productive when Uncle Sammy is going to take so much of my money from me to give to his nieces and nephews.

So what will happen is a lot fewer of Uncle Sam’s nieces and nephews will work hard and be less productive, because their annoying greedy uncle is taking away from them so much of what they produce. Which will be a drag on economic and job growth because our economy won’t be as productive. Also it would hurt our education because Americans will decide why should they work hard in school and get a good education when their Uncle Sam will pay them well not to work when they’re out-of-school with generous Unemployment Insurance checks. Which is also what you get in Sweden.

 

Posted in Milton Friedman, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Murmar: Larry King Live- Joan Collins: Talks Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe & Mae West

Posted on August 29, 2017 by Derik Schneider
Attachment-1-913

Source: Murmar- Joan Collins

Source:The Daily Review

As far as Frank Sinatra. When you’re worth hundreds of millions of dollars which is probably what Frank Sinatra was worth in today’s money back in the 1950s and 1960s, you don’t believe you live on top of the world. You believe you own the world and that anything you want you just get by asking or ordering it. You meet and work with a beautiful adorable brunette like Joan Collins with a great sense of humor and decide you want to have dinner with her that night. Why would the fact that you are currently in Hamburg Germany and Joan is probably 1000 miles or so away in England get in the way with you getting together with her that night?

You own your own plane and can just send it to her and pick her up and fly her back to Germany where you’re currently working. You’re not just perhaps the most popular singer in the world, but you’re a Hollywood star in films. Why would the fact that Joan Collins has an early call the next morning affect whether you two can get together that night? You just call your friend at Joan’s studio where she’s working for and tell him that she will be late the next morning because she’s having dinner with you in Germany.

That is how Frank Sinatra was probably thinking back then and what Joan did according to this interview was turn him down. And as Joan put it Frank Sinatra didn’t handle rejection real well because he wasn’t accustomed to being rejected. I mean rejecting Frank Sinatra could cost you. Jack and Bobby Kennedy rejected Frank in the early 60s by not going out to his home in California and instead going to Bing Crosby’s on a trip out there and Frank never forgave Bobby for that.

As far as Mae West. Joan Collins has this famous quote that age is just a number. If I had to guess I would say that quote is actually Mae West’s quote. Myra Breckinridge which was originally written by Gore Vidal comes out as a film in 1970 with Raquel Welch playing Myra and Mae West is in that movie. She’s already in her eighties at that point and could’ve actually been Frank Sinatra’a mother as far as years, perhaps Joan Collins grandmother and yet she’s still performing and singing in that movie and playing a sex goddess who wants to bring young sexy men up to her penthouse. The woman has a bed in her office in that movie. A woman who is already in her eighties.

As far as Marilyn Monroe. Joan is obviously right that gorgeous blondes aren’t taken seriously in Hollywood. Nothing new to report there. Lauren Bacall and Ingrid Bergman would be exceptions to that because they both showed early on in their careers that they had to be taken seriously and it would cost the studios money if they weren’t taken seriously, because those two women were both very intelligent and knew how to take care of themselves and how the business worked and what they were worth and meant to the movie industry. Marilyn Monroe wasn’t a dumb blonde, but was certainly immature and overly adorable both in appearance and personality and was probably used and taken advantage of as a result. And treated like a little girl.

Murmar: Larry King Live- Joan Collins: Talks Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe & Mae West

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: Molly Reynolds: Limitations of The Senate Filibuster

Posted on August 28, 2017 by Erik Schneider
The U.S. Capitol dome in Washington

Source: Brookings Institution

Source:The New Democrat

Warning! This article is only for truly hard-core political and Congressional junkies and people who haven’t slept in days and need to fall asleep real quick. Great bedtime reading for your hard-core insomniacs. Because this is not just about Congress, but the Senate in particular and not just the Senate, but Senate rules and not just Senate rules, but a rule called the filibuster. One of those inside Washington words that people from outside of the beltway might think is from a different language. Let alone able to explain what that word is and what it means.

For people who need to fall asleep real quick I’ll give you a little background and history about the Senate filibuster to explain the current limitations of it today and for those people who see this they might be able to sleep for weeks after reading this.

Before then Senate Leader Harry Read and about 52 or so of his Senate Democratic colleagues nuked the filibuster as it has to do with executive nominations and judicial nominations in the fall of 2013 in the 113th Congress. The Senate Minority Leader (the person who leads the minority party in the Senate) and his party colleagues in the Senate could block almost every piece of legislation on their own. If they had at least 41 seats and votes in the Senate.

The only exceptions having to with the budget and what’s called reconciliation. Which is a Congressional term that has to do with the budget. Meaning that any bill that has to do with spending tax dollars like tax cuts and reforms and expansions of entitlement programs like Medicare, would only need 51 votes including the Vice President to break a tie to pass the Senate. Now for someone who is a Congressional junky like myself and loves studying and reading about Congress especially the history of it, the Senate filibuster and Senate rules in general are fascinating to me and learning any information about it like that would make me so charge up it might keep me awake until the next solar eclipse. But for your average insomniac this kind of material might send them into a coma.

Thanks to former Senate Leader Harry Reid and his Senate Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the majority party only needs 51 votes to not only move to voting on presidential nominations for both the executive and judiciary, but for final passage on those nominations. During the spring this year Senate Democrats lead by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, blocked President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch with the filibuster rule. I think Senate Joe Manchin, Senate Joe Donnelly, and Senate Heidi Heitkamp, were the only three Senate Democrats who voted to cut off any filibuster of then Judge Gorsuch.

And when Senate Democrats blocked Gorsuch, current Senate Leader Mitch McConnell moved to eliminate all filibusters of Supreme Court nominees which passed on a party-line vote. Which means almost everyone in one party votes one way and almost everyone in the other party votes the other way. Not people standing in line to go to some party.

So under current Senate rules the majority party can only eliminate filibusters on legislation if they have 60 votes. Meaning they either have 60 seats in the Senate (which rarely happens) or they get a compromise with the minority party generally the Minority Leader or the minority manager of the bill that is on the floor. And that compromise leads to at least enough minority members of the Senate to cut off any potential filibuster of the current bill.

Or to get back to that crazy arcane word of reconciliation and the Senate majority party brings up some legislation that has to do with the budget. Something that they want as part of the budget that has to be passed that year. And if they’re able to do that they pass tax dollar related legislation with just 51 votes including the Vice President of the United States.

But even reconciliation has it’s limits because that rule has to be passed first and the time for that is limited if a budget is not passed during that year in Congress, then bills can only be passed through reconciliation through September. And then if a budget is still not passed every piece of legislation that is considered in the Senate is subjected to the cloture rule (meaning the filibuster) and needs 60 votes to pass for the rest of that year. Which means again unless the Senate majority party has 60 seats (which rarely happens) the majority party needs cooperation and votes from the minority party to move legislation in the Senate.

I hope these explanations of the Senate filibuster and it’s usage and limitations help people who are interested in learning about Congress, especially the upper chamber which is the Senate. Or at the very least helps people who are in badly need of sleep finally get the sleep that they deserve.

I realize reading about Congressional rules or perhaps reading about anything outside of new technology and celeb culture especially in today’s world reality TV world and overdose of celebrity culture and smartphones which of course is far more important (to too many people) can seem intrusive and time consuming. And reading about how legislation that affects over three-hundred-million Americans as far as what laws we have to do live under and will our civil liberties, property rights, civil rights, will be protected or expanded. Will any of our relatives be sent to war, how much we’re going to have to pay in taxes, or in interest on the national debt and budget deficit. Just to show some examples of how Congress and the Federal Government in general can and does affect our lives.

But it’s worth learning and knowing about any institution in America that can have that much power over how any of us live in America. Because we all pay for the government that we get whether we think that government is interesting and worth our time knowing about it or not. Whether we like it or not.

Attachment-1-909

Source: Discerning History

Discerning History: History of The Filibuster

Posted in Brookings, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lloyd Laney: Susan Hayward 1998 Biography

Posted on August 25, 2017 by kireschneider
Attachment-1-899

Source: Lloyd Laney

Source:The Daily Review

I believe what made Susan Hayward such a great actress was how real she was which allowed to her seem like she wasn’t acting. She almost had this “I have nothing to lose attitude so I might as well do things my way.” Which I guess is understandable because of how she grew up and was raised. Coming from an immigrant community in a very poor part of New York. And was taught very young or perhaps just learned herself that if she’s going to accomplish anything in life because of how she’s starting out she’s going to have to earn everything and work very hard. Because nothing will be given to her.

Sort of reminds me of how Richard Nixon started out in life coming from a very poor part of Southern California and yet he is elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in his early thirties and the U.S. Senate just two years later, Vice President of the United States by 39 and never had to worry about money the rest of his life. People appreciate things more in life when they earn them because they know what it’s like not to have much and don’t want to go back there. Which I believe is what kept Susan going for as long as she was able to and literally becoming not just one of the best actresses of her generation, but ever.

Not to get too political especially in piece about Classic Hollywood but Susan Hayward represents exactly what American exceptionalism is. That no matter your race, ethnicity, gender, how you were raised and the income level of your parents, if you have real talent, skills, and a strong work-ethic, you’ll make it in America. Susan Hayward’s lack of a start in life and having nothing to start of with and her father never making enough money for his family to live well and they always being in poverty, only made Susan work harder and be able to accomplish more on her own. Because she hated poverty so much that we was going to work as hard and be as successful as she possibly can.

Susan was finally able to finally enjoy life instead of worrying about will she have enough food to eat that day or will she homeless and other things that most Americans who don’t live in poverty take for granted everyday. I believe Susan’s upbringing and how real and honest she was contributed to her being the great actress that she was. Because she knew too well what poverty and going without was like and when she was acting it was like she wasn’t acting or pretending at all, because of how real she was.

I believe Susan Hayward was one of the first great dramatic comedic actresses. And what I mean by that is not someone who can do both drama and comedy well someone like a Sally Field today who is still one of the funniest people in Hollywood and has still has great comedic timing, but who is also a very good if not great dramatic actress. But Susan was someone who brought comedy to her dramatic roles and could combine both genres into one role and be dramatic and funny at the same time. The movie I’ll Cry Tomorrow where she plays a great but alcoholic actress, is an excellent example of that. Where she was cracking wisecracks with the perfect timing as she was playing a drunk with a really bad case of alcoholism.

Susan was so real as an actress and had a knack for playing women who were struggling and did that so well, because she wasn’t playing. She knew exactly what it was like to struggle in life and would take those parts and literally turn into the women she was playing, because she knew exactly what it was like to struggle in life. Which is what I believe made her a great actress. Which I believe is also what lead to Susan’s downfall and why she dies in 1975 in her late fifties because everything in life was such a struggle for her and she didn’t take enough time to actually enjoy what she accomplished in life.

Lloyd Laney: Susan Hayward 1998 Biography

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AEI: Ramesh Ponnuru- Up From Illiberalism

Posted on August 24, 2017 by Rik Schneider
Attachment-1-892

Source: Bloomberg News

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not going to argue here that anyone who is not a Liberal and is on the Right like Conservatives and Libertarians, but who are lets say small d democrats and people who believe in at least some democracy and believe in things like limited government, rule of law, individual rights, free press, property rights, etc, are illiberal. Because small d center-right democrats if anything believe in liberal values. Free speech, freedom of choice, right to privacy, property rights, checks and balances at least in government, free press, rule of law, etc.

My argument is that there illiberal’s on the Right and on the Left. Far-Right and Far-Left, people who are so hard-core in their own political beliefs and believe they have all the right answers and that any form of opposition is not only a threat to them and to the people they claim they want to serve. People on the Far-Right who view a free press and open democracy as a threat to their political power. People on the Left who see free speech and individual choice as dangerous things because to means people may be offended and may make bad decisions with their choices. But if you look at Venezuela which is supposed to be a democracy and yet you have a socialist government there that also sees free democracy and a free press as threats to their regime and have clamped down on democracy and free press.

Illiberal means someone who is opposed to liberal principles. Like restricting free thought which is free speech or free behavior. The ability for people to live in freedom and make their own decisions. Someone who is intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened. Again, that covers people on the Far-Right like Nationalists in Russia and in other Slavic countries., theocrats and monarchs in the Middle East. But also Socialists in Venezuela, as well as Communists in Cuba, China, and North Korea.

Conservatives and Libertarians on the right, believe in free thought, free assembly, free choice, individual rights, free press, checks and balances, rule of law, limited government, democracy. Democratic Socialists believe in democracy at least, but also in a free press, but also at least some individual rights like privacy and even property rights in the sense they don’t want government running the entire economy, unlike Marxists.

Where Democratic Socialists would differ from Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, is that they tend to value what they would call welfare rights over individual rights. They believe everyone is entitled to well-being and see the government as having the main responsibility in seeing that everyone is able to live well. Even if individual freedom and free choice is restricted to see that everyone can live well.

This discussion about illiberalism which generally gets to around what’s going on in Turkey and Russia right now which both are at best illiberal democracies where free press and democracy at are best heavily restricted there and where people in both countries have been arrested there simply for opposing the current government’s in both countries, is not about Liberals versus everyone else.

But people who believe in liberal values like free speech, free assembly, free choice, privacy, free and fair and elections, free press, rule of law, limited government, versus people who don’t. And people on the Center-Left like Liberals and Progressives (at least in the classical sense) and people on Center-Right like Conservatives and Libertarians, share these liberal values. Whereas people both on the Far-Left and Far-Right, Nationalists, Communists, and now Neo-Communists like in Venezuela, are the people in the world who are illiberal and practice illiberalism as a tool to accomplish their political objectives. And see their job as crushing the opposition by all means in order to accomplish their political objectives.

Attachment-1-893

Source: Audio Pedia

Audio Pedia: Illiberal Democracy

Posted in AEI Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Atlantic: Kurt Anderson: ‘The Cultural Factors Driving America’s Departure From Reality’

Posted on August 23, 2017 by Ederik Schneider

Attachment-1-886

Source:The Atlantic– Kurt Anderson for The Atlantic.

Source:The Daily Review

“Kurt Andersen’s cover story “How America Lost Its Mind” argues that “being American means we can believe anything we want.” This is due to a combination of the new-age mentality born out of the 1960s that encouraged Americans to find their own truth and the internet age, which has allowed us to create communities that reinforce our beliefs. According to Andersen, the perfect manifestation of America’s journey away from reality is the election of Donald Trump. Read more in The Atlantic’s September 2017 cover story:The Atlantic.”

From The Atlantic

I don’t want to make this whole piece about Donald Trump and even not most of it and perhaps just a lot of it, but the way I look at America’s Departure From Reality (to paraphrase Kurt Anderson) is way I describe Donald Trump’s approach to politics and broader approach to salesmanship. Which is that it’s not what’s true that’s important to him, but what’s believable. And not what’s believable to most people or intelligent people. But what’s believable to enough people for him to accomplish what he wants.

In 2016 that was the presidency and perhaps now it’s just about what’s believable to his base so his presidency doesn’t completely go under water. Right now President Trump’s approval rating is somewhere between 33-37% depending on what non-Fox News and Rasmussen poll you look at. Even Fox News has him in the low to mid forties right now. And you take President Trump’s base away from him he’s probably in the teens right now and perhaps low teens. Not the Republican Party but just his base in the Republican Party. Which is about 4-10 Republicans.

President Trump believes for him to stay alive and not risk being kicked out of office or asked to resign even with a Republican Congress, he has to have his base with him. And to for hat he has to tell them things that are believable to them even if the rest of the country knows what he’s saying his complete garbage. (To be kind) Millions of Americans perhaps have escaped the real world to break from reality and perhaps live in so-called reality TV because their real world is too scary for them. But so does their own President.

America’s break from reality of course didn’t start with Donald Trump. Right now he’s just the overwhelming benefactor of it. Where he now represents people who believe that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 elections and didn’t try to interfere in them. Even though President’s own intelligent agencies have told him that Russia tried to hack our elections. Climate change is a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and I could go on. But America’s break from reality has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Again he’s just the biggest benefactor of it.

We now live in a country where Americans believe reality TV is actually real and the people on these shows are like that in real-life. When in fact we now now (or at least some of us) that the cast members on those shows are encouraged by the producers of those shows to act out and be the biggest jerks they can and get into arguments with other cast members about nothing to draw the biggest ratings. Because conflict is what sells on TV.

Life in America can be tough and stressful and Americans sometimes need a break from that and be able to escape their own reality. Which is why we take vacations and a lot of us watch the tube and get online when we get home from work especially after we’ve completed everything we need to do that day. That’s fine and I do these things myself. But it’s when alternative reality takes over our lives and we start to live in those worlds and start seeing and hearing things that simply don’t exist is where virtual reality becomes a problem and we look stupid as a result. Americans are only as powerful and free as we are educated and intelligent.

The smarter we are the freer and powerful we are because we’ll make the right decisions for ourselves and people who depend on us. But the more virtual reality and so-called reality TV takes over our lives and we actually take those things seriously instead of the mindless entertainment that it is (like pro wrestling) the dumber we become and the less free that we are as a people and country.

Posted in The Atlantic, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TruthOut: Richard Wolff- Varney & Company: Richard Wolff Debates Stuart Varney on Socialism

Posted on August 22, 2017 by Derik Schneider
Attachment-1-878

Source: Democracy at Work– Richard Wolff & Stuart Varney

Source:The New Democrat

If Richard Wolff was truly an Marxist he would be calling for the elimination of private wealth and ownership all together. Since Communists at least in the Marxist and Leninist sense don’t believe in private property and wealth at all and believe in the state ownership of the means and production of society. That the central government owns and runs the economy and all business’s that are part of the economy. Where private production and ownership are outlawed. Which was how the Chinese economy operated up until forty years ago until they started privatizing a lot of their economy. And how the Cuban economy was operated up until ten years ago until they started privatizing. Perhaps Professor Wolff calls himself a Marxist economist because he’s studied and taught Marxism, but not someone who practices and believes in the philosophy himself.

So this wasn’t a debate between capitalism and Marxism. The two socialist examples that Stuart Varney laid out were Denmark and France, both countries have large private sectors. France has the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world with only 65 million people. Not that they’re a small country but that they have such a large economy even though their population is nowhere near the top ten in the world. What they were discussing was more like democratic socialism or social democracy, versus and free and uninhibited capitalism where you have a fairly small national government that taxes wealth at very low rates and doesn’t regulate much if any.

Democracy at Work: Richard Wolff Debates Stuart Varney About Socialism

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BBC: 1999 Jayne Mansfield Documentary

Posted on August 21, 2017 by Erik Schneider

Attachment-1-873

Source:BBC– Hollywood Babydoll Jayne Mansfield, being interviewed by BBC for their documentary about her.

Source:The Daily Review

“Movie star, pin-up queen, nightclub performer Jayne Mansfield lived a short but colorful life (1933-1967) during which she married three times, had five children (including TV star Mariska Hargitay), made over 30 films, appeared on hundreds of magazine and record album covers and dozens of TV appearances. She was known for her “dumb blonde” persona, almost-cartoonish dimensions, and a brilliant intelligence (she spoke multiple languages, played various instruments and was reported to have a 163 IQ). Unfortunately, she is as recognized for her presence in the media (including for her untimely passing) as she is for her on-screen performances. This comprehensive British documentary features tons of media footage, interviews with all three of her husbands, two of her children, and her friends and collaborators…

From Primativo 

I guess in one way Jayne Mansfield was a great actress and not just a great comedic actress and comedian, but a real great actress at least in the sense that she had so many people fooled. She wanted to be seen as the dumb blonde who needed her hot, adorable, sexy image to pay her bills. But in actuality she always knew what she was doing. An intelligent woman who wanted to be viewed as a bimbo and was such a great actress that she pulled that off. She had people thinking she was exactly as she came off which was as a bimbo.

Marilyn Monroe had the famous quote that it takes a smart woman to play the dumb blonde. Well that was Jayne Mansfield, the smart woman who played the dumb blonde. She knew what Hollywood was and how she could be successful in it and played her talents to the hilt. A hot, adorable woman with a great body, but who also had a great sense of humor and comedic timing, who was also an accomplished singer. But knew exactly what people in Hollywood and what the fans noticed first and what they wanted.

Which was to see this hot, adorable woman with the great curve appeal and then you add to that which was she was a great entertainer. Someone who should exchange wisecracks with funny people like Tom Ewell, Edmond O’Brien, Merv Griffin, Jack Benny, Cary Grant, and many others.

Jayne was better than Marilyn Monroe at least in this sense that Jayne knew she was really good and had made it and deserved what she accomplished. Unlike Marilyn who was battling mental illness and depression and was heavily medicated for a lot of her adult life and had even attempted suicide and been committed at one point.

Jayne had a plan from day one and knew what she needed to do to make it in Hollywood. But unfortunately Jayne Mansfield falls in the class of what could’ve happened if only and ends up dying at 34 in 1967 because of a car crash where she wasn’t even driving because her and her crew were in a big hurry to meet a big appointment that they had in New Orleans the next morning.

By the time Jayne died in 1967 she was woking the nightclub circuit as a singer because her Hollywood career had burned out because the major studios no longer wanted to work with her.

Jayne mentally in many ways was just as adorable as she was physically. She came off a little girl both physically and personally. And was fairly immature and developed bad habits like drinking heavily and not able to take criticism very well and work to expand her image so she could get better and bigger parts.

Which is why she fell out of Hollywood and down to the nightclub circuit just to pay the bills and keep working

Posted in Baby Jayne, Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment