Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Book TV’ Category

Attachment-1-1033

Source: Politics and Prose

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I don’t have much to offer about the movie High Noon, as least the original one from 1952. I did however see a movie with the same title from the Lifetime Network (of all places) in I believe 2009. But that is not what this piece is about. (Thank God!) Not a good movie and not trying to cure anyone’s insomnia by talking about the second High Noon movie. Not a good movie and not even very believable.

What I’m knowledgeable about and have read about and seen some documentaries about, is The Hollywood Blacklist from the 1940s and 1950s. Where workers out in the Hollywood industry who actually were Socialists and in some cases even Communists and even supported Communist Russia back then (known as the Soviet Union) but weren’t criminals and didn’t even have official relationships with the Soviet Government in Russia. They were simply on trial for their far-left political beliefs by crooked politicians in Congress who were simply trying to take advantage of the Red Scare and the start of the Cold War between America and Europe, against Russia and their allies in the East.

Hollywood professionals like writer Dalton Trumbo which there was a good movie made about him that came out in 2015 simply called Trumbo, were hauled in front of Congress at the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee simply because of their political beliefs. Not for any laws that they might have broken. But because they were Socialists and Communists who didn’t like the American liberal democratic form of government and instead wanted a socialist or communist state to replace our liberal democratic federal form of government.

The House Un-American Activities Committee, was exactly that which was Un-American. The idea that people could be hauled in front of Congress at first in the House and then later in the early 1950s to the Senate Investigation Committee chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy simply because of their politics and political beliefs and not for anything that they even may have done, is simply Un-American. So what if Dalton Trumbo was not just on the Far-Left in America, but was also a Communist! He was never going to have any political power in America, nor did he ever want any. And the Communist Party was never going to have any political power in America simply because they’re Communists and are illiberal. And oppose most of the liberal democratic values that most Americans love, like free speech and free elections, property rights, right to privacy, just to name a few.

Whether you’re a Communist on the furthest Left in American political or a Christian-Theocrat or Nationalistic-Tribalist on the furthest right in American politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. And express your beliefs in public and try to make the case for what you believe in public. Which is as American as our melting post and individualism. Which is what the so-called Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s which is what this nationalistic anti-communist movement opposed and tried to eliminate from American life.

Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

PJ Buchanan

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The world that Pat Buchanan was talking about and advocating for in this 1988 interview, simply doesn’t exist anymore and we were moving away from it in 1988 if not only escaped from there by then. Gays, no longer live in the closet. African-Americans, have just as much right to vote and are treated the same as Caucasian-Americans now. Women, now work and hold very responsible jobs, making good money, running and managing their own business’s. The music is much different and much more open about life. Americans, now have the freedom and feel the freedom to be themselves. Which is Americans and individuals and we live our lives the way we want to. Not how Pat Buchanan and other Christian-Conservatives feel we should live.

The 1950s, was great for America in many ways. We were not just the economic superpower of the world, but became the number one military and diplomatic power in the world. This was post-World War II where our economy boomed and our infrastructure system boomed as a result. But the problem with this era was that many Americans didn’t benefit from these American advances. Not because of anything that they did, but because of how they were born. Their complexion, their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their gender. Not because they were, or could be any less productive than Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. What the 1960s and the 1980s brought to America, was true individual freedom. Both from a personal and economic standpoint.

If you watch this video, think you see Pat Buchanan, essentially acknowledging what I’m arguing here. That the America that he grew up with in the 1950s simply no longer exists. And when he was asked, “do you want to use government to bring that America back?” He answered truthfully and honestly and said he doesn’t believe that, because its simply not possible. Which is a very practical answer and the correct answer. As far as the 1988 presidential election, you had Vice President George H.W. Bush, for the Republican Party. Who represented President Ronald Reagan and his policies in that election. Going up against Governor Michael Dukakis, who represented the New America and the direction that America has been moving to ever since.
Remember This-C-SPAN: Pat Buchanan- Biography, Apartheid, Culture War, Foreign Policy, Free Trade: 1988 Interview

Read Full Post »

AngloSource: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

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.

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips- The Triumph of Anglo-America

Read Full Post »

President G.W. BushSource: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Just to state out first George W. Bush is the worst U.S. President in my entire thirty-nine-years on Earth. And that includes Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush’s father, who is G.W.’s father of course and Barack Obama. And all of these president’s aren’t looking very good right now and all had plenty of issues. The differences being that other than G.W. the other president’s by in large successfully dealt with the issues that came up under their presidencies.

You can’t say that about G.W. if you look at the economy, national debt, deficit, banking system, two wars oversees and I could probably go on. American president’s are judged by the situation of the country when they came to office and the situation of the country when they leave office. And other than not getting hit again inside of the United States after 9/11, which of course he deserves credit for as Commander-in-Chief, its hard to find an area of the country where it was better off in 2009 when President Bush left office and 2001 when he came into office. And even 9/11 a big fact is we got hit in the first place in America because of intelligence failures.

Now to try to sound somewhat positive about President Bush and even factual. I give him credit for giving the Republican Party alternatives to how to look at poverty in America which he actually took seriously and providing a vision for how government can help low-income people when it comes to poverty and education. By empowering state and local government’s, as well as non-profits in the private sector to help Americans in poverty. But also help people in poverty around the world. That so-called Reform Conservatives people like Representative Paul Ryan and his brother Jeb Bush are pushing today. Which is something that Republicans desperately need to do in order to connect with Americans who aren’t wealthy.

Another thing about President Bush. Imagine had President Bush’s foreign and national security policy been what he ran on in 2000. A humble foreign policy where we are engaged around the world with out allies, but not trying to govern the world ourselves. 9/11 happens and we invade Afghanistan which is what she should’ve done to knockout that terrorist state that was harboring terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. But we don’t go to Iraq at least by ourselves and certainly not on the evidence that we had. Because Collin Powell is chief national security and foreign policy adviser. Instead of Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or Condi Rice as Secretary of State. Collin Powell becomes G.W.’s Henry Kissinger.

The last thing I would say about George W. is that he’s not stupid. Which probably puts me in a tiny minority inside of the Democratic Party. But he’s not stupid, but unqualified to be President of the United States which can be said about probably ninety-percent of the country. Had G.W. continued as Governor of Texas, maybe he goes down as a great Governor and runs for President in 2004 or 2008 as an experienced Governor of a huge successful state. Takes a couple of years off before running for president and learns about foreign policy and national security and becomes the Ronald Reagan of his generation. But we’ll never know.

Politics and Prose: James Mann- George W. Bush

Read Full Post »

Governor Bill Clinton

New Democrat


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I’m a Liberal Democrat and a New Democrat and yes those are the same things. Except I might be more liberal than New Democrats today on some social issues, especially civil liberties. Especially since 9/11 where I believe we can’t have security without liberty. That they need each other and New Democrats today since 9/11 tend to side more on security than liberty. Hillary Clinton would be a perfect example of that. But the New Democrats are the Liberals in the Democratic Party and I’m going to explain that.

The New Democratic philosophy is not Republican light or sounding more progressive or socialist. And moving past the New Deal and Great Society and creating a real welfare state in America. But is about building off the principles of the Founding Fathers in America. And that individual liberty is for everyone. And not just European-American men, but the entire country regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, family income. And using government to expand freedom and not government dependence.

The New Democratic philosophy is about individual liberty for everyone. It is not anti-government and having a government so small that it can’t help people in need. And let the market take care of the rest. Or a pro-big-government philosophy and using government to take care of everyone. But empowering everyone in need to be able to take care of themselves. And this blog covers a lot of different issues about what exactly that means. But New Democrats aren’t Social Democrats on the far-left or Moderate Conservatives on the center-right.

The New Democratic philosophy saved the Democratic Party and represents exactly how Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992. Because pre-1992 Democrats were seen as European Social Democrats who wanted to center most of the power in the country with a big government in Washington to take care of everyone. They were called Liberal Democrats even though the Democrats in charge who had most of the power in the Democratic Party were Social Democrats on the far-left and mainstream FDR New Deal Progressives. But they weren’t Liberals at least on economic policy and national security.

By the time Bill Clinton left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now clearly beating Republicans on most of the economic issues. By the time George W. Bush left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now even beating Republicans on fiscal responsibility and the federal budget. That is the legacy of the New Democratic Coalition that it saved the Democratic Party. And made them a governing party again

Politics and Prose: Al From- The New Democrats and The Return to Power

 

Read Full Post »

US Supreme Court

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

A lot of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 rulings where the right-wing comes out on top 5-4 looks fishy to me. And looks like an example of where the Tea Party and their big money backers have bought those five right-wing justices. And those five justices are just there to protect the wishes of the partisan right-wing of the Republican Party. The hard libertarian-right and the far-right. The campaign finance decisions are a perfect example of that.

But as Laurence Tribe mentioned in his talk you’ll see cases where Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of the Left, but where the so-called swing vote Anthony Kennedy who I believe is more of a Libertarian than anything else, at least a Conservative Libertarian will rule with the Right. And with Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Sam Alito ruling with the Left instead of Justice Kennedy. Or Justice Antonin Scalia perhaps the Tea Party’s favorite Justice ruling with the Left when it comes with the privacy issues.

Actually if you look at most of the Supreme Court decisions they tend not to be 5-4 either way. And a lot of them are 6-3 or 7-2. The Justices agree on a lot more than they get credit for. Its really just the controversial decisions where there are clear differences between the Left and Right that makes the Supreme Court look a lot more partisan than it is. Like with campaign finance or corporate power, unions affirmative action to use as examples. So the Supreme Court is not as radical as it tends to get portrayed especially by the radical-left.

Read Full Post »

 

 

Attachment-1-154Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

What can I say about Bob Saget?  Well he’s the best Danny Tanner ever, wait, he’s the only Danny Tanner ever but, hey, that still counts. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that for the two people who see this who’ve never heard of Full House.  It was on back when ABC was making hit TV shows, you know twenty-five years ago. And then I’ll move onto bigger and better things (hopefully) like inappropriate acts, which I gotta admit are a hell of a lot more interesting than the career of Bob Saget. Sorry Bob, you’ve done a good job but your career is not that interesting.

Full House, for the two people who read this post who’ve never heard of it, and, by the way, if you haven’t heard of this show, which was  a hit sitcom on ABC for eight years, you probably haven’t heard of Three’s Company, Cheers, or some of these other great sitcoms from the 1980s and 90s.  Full House is about a single, widower father with three daughters that he is rearing himself because their mother is dead.

The first part is believable enough, right, even in the 80s and 90s there were single fathers divorced or widowed.  Divorced, with full-custody of their kids,  mom being a prostitute or, in Danny Tanner’s case, deceased.  It gets better, this is where Hollywood,  San Francisco, and Los Angeles come in.  Tanner (Back to you Bob Saget) brings in his brother in-law (John Stamos), the maternal uncle of his kids  and his best friend Joey (Dave Coullier) to help him raise his kids.

So Full House goes from two parents a father and mother, with three daughters to three dads and three kids. This is where it gets more Hollywood.  All three of these guys are happy, straight men who just happen to live in San Francisco.  The show had a great cast and great writers and they made it work well for eight seasons, which is a great run for a sitcom.

On the subject of inappropriate acts, I’ll give you a list of three things never to do in public.

Never fart in an elevator, even if you are the only one in the elevator, because the elevator can always stop and someone else can get on before you get off.

Never cuss in front of kids unless you like being cussed out yourself, especially when they are old enough to understand swearing and can use swear words in a sentence.  This is a lesson that Bob Saget apparently learned personally.

Never tell your boss that she’s hot unless she’s also your girlfriend or wife. I believe the reasons for this are obvious. If you don’t think that you can follow this rule, pick someone else to work for.  Get a new job. Once you get it on your resume that you told your boss she’s hot, you’ll have a hard time getting anything else on your resume.

That is enough of Bob Saget and my list of three things not to do in public.  I hope that I haven’t taken up too much of your time or mind with this piece.

Bloomberg News: Primm Fox- Bob Saget Admits ‘Inappropriate Acts’ in New Book

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: