Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, October 12, 2017

The Hollywood Reporter: Beverly Hills 90210- The Teen Drama That Brought Back Sideburns Turns 27

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Jennie Garth & Shannen Doherty-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

At risk of giving out my age, Beverly Hills 90210 takes me back 27 years to my first year in high school. I started high school during the late summer of 1990 in Bethesda, Maryland. Beverly Hills comes out almost two months later in late October that year. The kids on 90201 at least the main stars characters were a year ahead of me in high school. I was the class of 1994 in high school and they were the class of 93. So I got to see their last three years of high school and their first year of college my whole time in high school. And thats exactly what I did, because Beverly Hills and the original Law & Order, were my favorite two shows in the 1990s, (not including Monday Night Football) at least the early and mid 1990s. Actually, add LA Law to that list, so I saw a lot of Beverly Hills and know the show very well.

Beverly Hills wasn't the first show about my Generation X. The Facts of Life from the 1980s was that show. Beverly Hills wasn't even the second show about my generation. Saved by The Bell from the late 1980s and early 90s was that. And both of those shows deserve their own articles and pieces written about them as well, because they're both very successful and important to this generation. But Beverly Hills was an original at least in the sense that it was the first soap opera about Generation X. People who grew up and came of age during the 1980s and 1990s. Who were born in the 1960s and 1970s. Whether you want to use the official Census Bureau definition of Gen-X as 1965-79, or use a more believable figure like 1962 or even 1961, till 1979, we are the generation was that was born in the 1960s and 1970s and came of age during the 1980s and 1990s. So if you went to high school and graduated high school in the 1990s, you're probably a Gen-Xer, unless you graduated in the late 90s.

So that is what Beverly Hills was about how Gen-X kids grew up and what we went through and experienced as a generation. For all the good and bad and Beverly Hills had a lot of both. From parents of Gen-X kids falling in love again and getting remarried, to dealing with teen pregnancy and teen suicide. It has two twins literally from Minneapolis, (ha, ha, the Minnesota Twins, get it) yes it was corny, but the Walsh Family moves from Minneapolis to the Los Angeles area settling in Beverly Hills into a new beautiful him. Jim Walsh (the husband and father) is a successful accountant and lands a new and good job in Beverly Hills and moves his family 2000 miles or so from Minneapolis to Los Angeles.

The Walsh's have two kids who are yes twins Brandon and Brenda (played by Jason Priestly and Shannen Doherty) and they are uplifted from the down to earth 1950s lifestyle of the Upper Midwest in Minnesota, where they get 6 months or more of winter every year, out to Los Angeles where they've never even heard of winter, let alone seen it and get 6 months of summer instead. So the kids especially get a real cultural shock during the first season of this show.

It gets much better and more interesting, not that the Walsh Family aren't that interesting, because the Brenda Walsh character might be the most fascinating character on the show. Either her of Dylan McKay (played by Luke Perry) but the people they meet and befriend in Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School, are all sons and daughters of LA big shots. Entertainer moguls and people who at least do business and have clients in the Hollywood industry. And they meet most if not all the stereotypes Los Angeles kids.

Kelly Taylor (played by (Jennie Garth) is the daughter of an aging actress who is an alcoholic and addicted to illegal narcotics as well. Kelly's parents of course are divorced and she rarely sees her father.

Steve Sanders (played by Ian Ziering) is the son of an actress and a Hollywood businessman. Who you think with that background would do very well at least starting out as far as never having to worry about money and where he might live. But the guy is a bit of a rebel and a constant screw up who is essentially always in trouble and looking to get into trouble. Thinking he will get away with it and always has one scheme or another, but always gets caught. We probably all grew up with guys like that.

Donna Martin (played by Tori Spelling) on the surface at least comes off as a typical Southern California blonde bimbo. But she's very cute both personally and physically and very kindhearted always looking to help others. Who is a good girl always looking to please her parents, especially her Phyllis Schlafly lookalike over-paternalistic mother who lives in and is very happy in Los Angeles, but like Phyllis Schalfly believes Hollywood is destroying her 1950s traditional America. And strongly looks down upon individualism.

Dylan McKay (played by Luke Perry) is my favorite character on the show. Luke Perry plays the son of the Hollywood investor as well as it can be played. He's essentially a good guy (at least when he's sober) but is the constant rebel who grows up until his parents literally let him ago and buy him his own house, in a hotel. Because his parents get divorced and his mother skips out on them and moves to Hawaii. Leaving her son with his father who doesn't seem to have the time to raise his son. And has him put up in a hotel and gives his son Dylan money to take care of himself. Dylan is basically a young guy with no parental guidance other than maybe Jim Walsh (the twins father) who manages his trust fund for him. Jim Walsh really is the closest thing that Dylan has to a father, or even parent on the show.

I guess I should say something about David Silver ( played by Brian Austin Green) who I guess was okay on this show, but what has he done lately? I believe Beverly Hills is really Brian Green's only real shot at making it big in Hollywood and when that dried up so did his career. David Silver is one of those guys who is actually hipper than he seems at first, who knows how to be cool, but struggles in executing it. He is one of those guys who wants to be in with what we at least called back then  the in crowd. I guess its called clicke today, but doesn't really fit in at least during the first season.

I would mention the twins but they get so much attention anyway and the fact that they moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles in the middle of high school to start their sophomore years, plus with everything that has been written about them before, gives you a pretty good idea about them. They both probably deserve their own articles about them anyway.

Beverly Hills is a good example of what life was like as teenagers (at least LA teenagers) in the early 1990s and what life was like when cell phones weren't mainstream yet and the internet was a baby. The internet comes out in the summer of 91 during the 2nd season of Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills is also an example of what life was like for teens and young adults before coffee houses were everywhere and before social media was online. Where people actually got together physically to hang out and socialize. Because our lives weren't dominated by our iPhones and laptops. And is a great show especially for people who are interested in what life was like in the 1990s especially the early 90s and what growing was like for Generation X.
The Hollywood Reporter: Beverly Hills 90210- The Teen Drama That Brought Back Sideburns Turns 27 This Month

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Patrick J. Buchanan: Judge Roy Moore & God's Law

Source: Patrick J. Buchanan-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

As much as so-called Conservatives like to claim that they believe in the rule of law, this is where the term so-called comes in when talking about some people who call themselves Conservatives. Former Judge Roy Moore now U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore from Alabama, has said that he doesn't believe he has to follow laws that violate what he calls God's Law. To put it simply, if a law is passed or has been on the books for years that violates his fundamentalist religious beliefs like same-sex marriage, the right to privacy which even covers pornography and homosexuality, that Judge Moore believes he has the right under his religious beliefs to violate those laws.

Judge Moore is not a strict-constructionist when it comes to the U.S. Constitution or a Constitutional Conservative. He's Christian-Theocrat who believes separation of church and state violates the U.S. Constitution, even though its in the Constitution. Which is like one of these radical New-Left ANTIFA Neo-Communist activists saying that Americans don't have a right to free speech, even though we have this little annoying document that annoys the hell out of the Far-Left and Far-Right that guarantees our free speech rights in America.

No one on the far Christian-Right in America and far Christian-Right is about as Far-Right as you can get in America, Christian-Right is pretty far, but no one on the far Christian-Right who are Christian-Theocrats like Roy More, should ever complain about Middle Eastern and Muslim theocracy. Because Christian-Theocrats the Roy Moore's, Pat Robertson's of the world, believe in theocracy as well. Just replace fundamentalist Islam with fundamentalist Christianity. Replace Arabs and other Middle Easterners, with English-Protestant Americans.

Roy Moore believes homosexuality should be illegal because it violates his religious beliefs. The Far-Left believes that criticism of Islam should be illegal because it offends some Muslims. Or even hate speech from Neo-Nazis who express their hate towards African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities, should be illegal because it offends those groups as well as most good Americans.

The problem that these fringes have again is that little annoying document called the U.S. Constitution that big governmentalist's on the Christian-Right and radical Socialist-Left, actually most if not all Socialists in America are radical at least in America, but you get the idea, seem to hate.

The Christian-Right doesn't use the U.S. Constitution as their guiding document and principles. What they do is take advantage of those rights and principles to advance their political agendas. Their interpretation of the Bible is what guides their politics. The Socialist-Left doesn't believe laws and rights that were given to us over two-hundred years ago should apply to us today. Like the First Amendment, 2nd Amendment, federalism which is part of the 10th Amendment, and that the will of the people at the time should be what guides and govern us. And not a Constitution with all of these amendments that are almost impossible to overturn.

The problem that the Christian-Right has in America and I'm talking about their radicals since a lot of religious fundamentalist have radical religious views, but don't necessarily believe their religious and cultural values should be forced on the rest of the country or want to see America become a religious theocracy, but the Roy Moore Christian-Theocratic wing of this movement's problem is that they don't live in a Christian-Theocracy or any other type of theocracy. They live in a constitutional federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy.

And just because the Christian-Right believe some laws and rights, and protections,  are immoral like the right to privacy and free speech that they find offensive like homosexuality and certain forms of entertainment, or athletes protesting during the national anthem, doesn't mean they have the right to violate laws just because they believe those laws, rights, and protections violate their interpretation of God's Law. We have rule of law in America and if you don't like one law or certain laws, you have the constitutional right to peacefully protest those laws and work to overturn them. As well as the obligation to obey those laws as long as there're on the books. Which is apparently is something that Roy Moore either didn't learn in law school, or ignored.
Source: Michael Jacques

Michael Jacques: CNN New Day- Chris Cuomo Interviewing Roy Moore: Rights Come From God As A Matter of Organic Law

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Movie Documentary: A&E Biography- Yvonne De Carlo

Source: Movie Documentary- Clark Gable & Yvonne De Carlo-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Yvonne De Carlo at least to me represents the total package when it comes to actresses and entertainers. After you get through her mesmerizing first impression of this beautiful baby-faced adorable Italian brunette, with a great shape, you also see a very intelligent woman with a great sense of humor and great dramatic ability as well. Her most famous role is probably as the mother on Adams Family, but she did so much before that.

Similar to Susan Hayward she's a women who didn't come from much with her father not in the picture and with a mother who didn't seem have much interest in raising her. Susan Hayward's issues with her parents were that they were poor and had to raise their kids in poverty. With Yvonne's family it was being born to father who wasn't around and a mother who wasn't ready to raise her. And yet by 1943 Yvonne gets her first break as an actress in the movie The Deerslayer starting a great career as a movie as well as TV actress and doing comedy, drama and dramatic comedy.

 I believe I would put Yvonne De Carlo on the dramatic/comedy side when it comes to great actors and actresses. Similar to Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, Yvonne De Carlo, and many others. An actress who was very good at both comedy and drama, but even better when those genres were combined, When you would have a great drama with a lot of funny people in it with a lot of lets say sarcasm and flipped lines. And perhaps having funny actors and entertainers who would add their own material and improvise with their own expressions making their characters even more entertaining and funny.

Cary Grant perhaps is the master of dramatic comedy which is why he worked so well with Alfred Hitchcock because he loved dramatic comedy and had a real knack for it. Yvonne was an actress who would have been a great soap actress both on TV and in the movies because she was so good at delivering clever lines, putting people down, but doing it in a funny, honest, entertaining way, that didn't make her seem mean.

I haven't seen all of Yvonne De Carlo's movies and have only gotten more familiar with her career in the last two years or so, but if you are interested in see some good Yvonne movies, I would suggest Death of a Scoundrel where she plays the executive investment of a business investor played George Sanders who really was a scoundrel, but speaking of dramatic comedy you almost have to like at least parts of the Clementi Sabourin character (played by George Sanders) with Yvonne's character there to keep the man honest and in check. They work really well in the movie and it almost seems like the Yvonne character hates Clementi in the movie and yet is never able to leave him until the end because there's something about him that she loves and not just the money he pays her.

Yvonne to me represents a actress that again was simply the total package as an actress. Great to look, great to listen to, but she was also a great actress and incredibly entertaining. Someone with style and substance who didn't have low self-esteem issues because she knew who she was and how good she was. Who didn't get picked up off the street by some agent or director because she had a great face or figure and then they make a project out of her and try to make her into at an acceptable actress. But someone who came from nothing and did the work to make herself a great actress. Who also happened to be beautiful, adorable, with a beautiful body as well. And represents Old Hollywood when substance was rated higher in style and where you had to be able to do the work and do it well to succeed in Hollywood and where physical looks weren't simply good enough.
Movie Documentary: A&E Biography- Yvonne De Carlo

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Daniel J. Mitchell: Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxism

Source: AIM-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog. That the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism, in his view. And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far. So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society “in their view” where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

Things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around. Transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects. Socialism democratic or not, is still a very collectivist ideology. Where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy. Where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we’re romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism,is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war. Where soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America and Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view, to use as one example.

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the Democratic world at least. The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil. Or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela. Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism is you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America? Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.
Source: Animate Educate

Animate Educate: Understand Socialism vs Communism

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner: 1983 TV Interview

Source: Alan Eichler-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

This might sound harsh but I believe Lana Turner's life represents a Hollywood character and actress who struggled to get out of character when she was off stage. Actresses and actors when they make it in Hollywood and even become popular to the point where everyone interested in movies and TV knows who they are pick up an image. And believe they have to live up to that image to keep their popularity and stay hot in the business. Even if that image is not positive.

Like with Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield being known as blond bimbos and living up to that on and off camera. Even though in real life where actually pretty intelligent. Or James Dean being known as a teen rebel who is always taking on society and never quite settles down personally and is always fighting.

I believe in Lana Turner's case she picked up the image as a soap actress character on some show where she has all the money any person could have and could have any man at anytime and ends up with every man and even marrying every man. Has kids with every man she gets involved with. (At least practically) Sounds like at least two female characters on General Hospital and if you're familiar with the show and are a fan, you probably know who I'm talking about.

Lana Turner was perfect for soap operas because she was perfect for dramatic comedy. Both in her personal life as far as how she lived both intentionally and unintentionally, but she was also a great actress and a very funny woman as well. Which made her perfect for dramatic comedy which is what most good soap operas are like General Hospital, Dallas, Melrose Place, to use as examples, Days of Our Lives. To me at least Lana Turner's life was the story of a great soap opera. A lot of ups and downs, falls, and dramatic comebacks and she was one of the best soap actresses, as well as characters that we've ever had.
Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner: 1983 TV Interview 

Thursday, September 7, 2017

The American Spectator: Opinion- Jeffrey Lord: 'ANTIFA- The New Ku Klux Klan'

Source: The American Spectator-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Here's an example of a right-winger in this case Jeffrey Lord (former political analyst at CNN) who doesn't want his side to and have to take any responsibility for anything negative that most Americans would view as not just negative but horrible. Which in this case would be racist bigotry and racist terrorism like the Ku Klux Klan and the broader Alt-Right. So what they'll do is to make it seem that these radicals are actually Democrats or even worst in their view, Liberals. Even if you you just took Liberalism 101 you would know that racial intolerance is not a liberal value, but racial intolerance is actually illiberal. Racial tolerance and racial blindness as far as how we judge people are liberal values. And anyone who is a true Conservative, Libertarian, Democratic Socialist, also believes in racial tolerance and racial blindness.

The Ku Klux Klan that was made up of Dixiecrat Democrats. The KKK had members of Congress including senators as well. There were also Dixiecrats in Congress who weren't affiliated with the KK K officially, but were ideologically in sync with the KKK, short of physically using violence against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. And believed that African-Americans and other non-European-Americans weren't entitled to the same rights in America as Caucasians. But didn't believe in using terrorism to stamp out the civil rights movement.

Just because you're registered as a Democrat doesn't make you liberal, progressive, or left. Just because you're registered as a Republican, doesn't mean you're conservative, libertarian, or right. It just means you're registered with that party. Before the late 1970s or so you had right-wing Democrats (Dixiecrats) who represented perhaps as much 1/3 or more of the Democratic Party. Who I would argue at least weren't Center-Right Conservatives, but Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists, who represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today.

Senator Strom Thurmond who was a U.S. Senator from 1955-2003, one of the longest serving members of Congress in American history, was a Democrat up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s and switched to the Democratic Party in 1964. His politics and ideology didn't switch, just his political party. He was a Dixiecrat until he left the Democratic Party and then I guess you could call him a Dixie Republican when he became part of the GOP. But he was always a Neo-Confederate Nationalist who moderated his views on racial issues, but never supported the civil rights laws and was always a right-winger and even on the Far-Right in American politics.

Senator Jim Eastland, was also a Dixiecrat in his time in Congress in the 1950s, 60s, ands 70s and there were many many Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate Nationalist right-wing Democrats in the Democratic Party during this period, who now represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. As they would say, 'they didn't leave the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left them."

As far as ANTIFA. They are obviously a radical leftist socialist and perhaps even communist movement in America with no right-wing or Republican leanings. But they don't seem to be associated with the Democratic Party either. Perhaps in some cases with the Far-Left of the party ideologically. But they are even to the left of Bernie Sanders who represents the modern Martin Luther King People's Party movement which is a peace loving movement that believes in economic equality through democratic socialist means.

ANTIFA- think by any means necessary to accomplish their objectives which includes violence and even terrorism targeted at Far-Right groups and individuals. Which they say they want to eliminate fascism. But where I could agree with Jeff Lord here is that they want to eliminate right-wing fascism like the KKK and broader Alt-Right. But would keep their form of fascism in place. Which is anyone on the right-wing or anyone who disagrees with them in general, doesn't have a right to speak in their view. Which is a classic form of fascism which is to eliminate opposing views and speech. Even if that means using violence and terrorism to accomplish those objectives. They're also anti-capitalist and would like to eliminate capitalism and perhaps even property rights. But right now they seem to be interested and eliminating the Far-Right in America. Again by any means necessary.
Source: The 100 Club

The 100 Club: ANTIFA- The New KKK

Thursday, August 31, 2017

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

Source: Alan Eichler- Lana Turner-
Source: This piece was originally posted at 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

Thursday, August 24, 2017

AEI: Ramesh Ponnuru- Up From Illiberalism

Source: Bloomberg News-
Source: This piece was originally posted at 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.
Source: Audio Pedia

Audio Pedia: Illiberal Democracy

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Alan Eichler: Robert Osborne Interviewing Lana Turner- 1982 TV Interview

Source: Alan Eichler- Bob & Lana-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Just to be a little personal when you're talking about cute Hollywood blondes, Lana Turner is at the top of the list. Even in her late forties and fifties she was still as cute as a little girl and not just because she was really short. Love Has Many Faces from 1964 I believe is Lana's best movie and one of the best soap operas of all-time (at least in my opinion) Lana worked with the gorgeous baby-face adorable Stefanie Powers in that movie. And Stefanie is maybe 20 at that point and as cute as can be and Lana is in her early forties and Lana is the cutest women in that movie. That movie also had a beautiful adorable brunette in Ruth Roman in it. Peyton Place from the 1950s, she's cuter than her daughter in that movie.

Lana Turner was always an adorable gorgeous baby blonde with a keen honest intelligence and quick wit. Which made her perfect for soap movies in the 50s and 60s like The Big Cube in 1969 which is more of a cult favorite than anything else, but still a very entertaining and funny movie. And made her perfect for TV soaps like Falcon Crest in the 1980s. The Bad and The Beautiful where she plays a brand new soon to be the next hot star in Hollywood and she works with Kirk Douglas, Barry Sullivan and Dick Powell in that movie. She was like a little girl in that movie as far as physical stature but that little baby face and how she spoke and came off in that movie. The Bad and The Beautiful is the prefect title for that movie. Because there were no angels in that movie. But ordinary people simply trying to survive working for a selfish producer who was  user of talent.

If you were going to put together a list of the top 5-10 Hollywood actresses of all-time I believe Lana Turner would have to be on it. Of course it would also have to have The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth on it. Slim Lauren Bacall would have to be on it. Elizabeth Taylor would have to be on it. Ava Gardner would have to be on it and if you left Ava off she might sue you for that. Susan Hayward would have to be on it. I believe Lauren Bacall is the best perhaps Liz Taylor is just right behind her.

But Lana Turner is in that group as well because she was so convincing and a great dramatic comedic actress who combined great dramatic affect with quick wit as well. And self-deprecating humor as well and not afraid to make fun of herself. Maybe that had something to do with the alcohol or maybe just because she was so honest. But I believe the best actresses and actors are the most honest which allows for them to be the most convincing because they look like they're playing themselves. Which is why Lana Turner is so high up the Hollywood best ever list.
Alan Eichler: Robert Osborne Interviewing Lana Turner- 1982 TV Interview

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Alex Jones: Donald Trump- Is The Heart Of The Nationalist Movement: Separating Nationalism & Tribalism From Patriotism

Source: Alex Jones-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I'm getting tired of hearing from the mainstream media that the Donald Trump movement is new, because it isn't. Donald Trump's base are made up of blue-collar Anglo-Saxon Protestant and other European ethnic nationalistic voters, who came on the scene in 2009 as part of the original Tea Party movement. They just didn't have one leader who could bring them all together in 2012 to win that presidential election.

The same people who love Donald Trump are the same people who love Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. People who were against the Iraq War in 2003, the bank bailouts in 2008, ObamaCare in 2010. People who are loyal Republican voters going all the way back to the late 1960s, but believe the business class free market Republicans like the Bush's of the world and Conservative-Libertarians have let them down. And is why they're losing jobs and seen a lot of their small towns disappear.

Donald Trump might be an idiot when it comes to public policy and I believe might be is giving him too much credit, but he's a very smart politician in the sense that he knows where his support is and how to speak to those people. The Tea Party of today is now Donald Trump and his nationalistic blue caller wing of the Republican Party. Roughly 30-35% of the Republican Party and perhaps 20-25% of the country.

Who believe their 1950s America when European-Americans were dominant and had most of the power in the country and were ethnic and racial minorities lived behind the scenes, were women weren't expected to do anything other than raise their kids and run their homes, was considered mainstream American life. Where even rock music was considered out-of-bounds and fringe. That America is obviously no longer a big part of America and we now live in a country where diversity is everywhere and just racial and ethnic diversity, but all sorts of lifestyles and cultures are now a big part of American life. And these Nationalist voters want their old America back.

These Nationalist Donald Trump voters call themselves American Patriots. But really they're American tribalist's who believe their part and section of America are the true Americans and the real American Patriots. Which is different from true Patriots who love their country meaning the whole country and love their nationality all together. And not just people who live where they live and look the way they do and think like them.

I'm all for patriotism if it's justified and you don't just believe your country and people are great because it's your country and your people, but because your people (meaning your nationality) are great and you live in a great country. Its tribalism and tribalist's that I have a problem with. People who look down on other people in the country because they have different racial, ethnic backgrounds, different religion, different culture and lifestyle. There are Donald Trump voters who even look down on Americans who are well-educated and come from big cities and metropolitan areas. Perhaps have spent time oversees and have even lived oversees.

Again, I'm all in favor of patriotism and consider myself an American Patriot, but I love America and Americans period. I even love the celebrity culture and new-tech geeks who know what shoes Lindsay Lohan was wearing with her new bag when she went out shopping in Beverly Hills and what she had for lunch that day and camp out the night before to be assured they are one of the first 100 people to buy the latest smartphone. But couldn't even name the mayor of their city even if you spotted them the last name of their mayor. I love Americans who are experts on the superficial and morons when it comes to important issues and things in life. I don't love them because of that, but the fact that they're Americans and they are taking advantage of what's great about being American which is the freedom to be yourself.

I love rednecks, especially country girls not so much because I love that lifestyle, but vacationing in that part of the country would be a lot of fun. But again because I love people who feel free and the freedom to be Americans which is being yourself. Regardless if big city yuppie Yankees look down on you. And call them small time and everything else.

What's great about America is being American. The fact that no matter where you're personally from even from another country, or where your family originally came from, or what God you believe in or no God at all, or what gender you're attracted to, or where you grew up in America, or where you went to school or what you do for a living (short of being a criminal) you're just as American as everyone else in the country. The person from rural America or a big city ghetto who makes it out of that environment by busting their ass growing up and working the whole time while they're growing up and going to school and gets a scholarship to go to college and does well there and makes it in life, is just as American as someone like Donald Trump. Who started off as an adult already having a millions dollars from his father.

Being American is about being yourself and having the freedom to live your own life and to be yourself. Not about your ethnic or racial background, or what God you believe in, or were you born rich. But the fact that all Americans are just as American as everyone else. That is what makes America exceptional. But that is not the movement that Donald Trump represents. He represents nationalistic tribalist's which is different from American Patriots.
Alex Jones: Donald Trump Is The Heart Of The Nationalist Movement

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Crash Course: Craig Benzine- The Golden Age of Hollywood: Film History

Source: Crash Course-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Damn, if Craig Benzine could only talk faster and not have to take breaths in-between words, he could get a lot done. But seriously, this guy must have a year supply of free Red Bull or Starbucks coffee, because he makes speed freaks sound like comatose patients. I'm not saying I've never heard someone else talk faster and for a longer period of time, I just can't name anyone right now. I would have to go through all of my memory banks and cash all them out and I might not be able to come up with another time where I heard a faster longer talker.

I'm not going to cover much of what Craig Benzine said there, because I don't have slow-mo on my computer and he just went through all of these areas really fast. But the Golden Age of Hollywood really for me goes from the 1940s up until the 1970s or so. It was an era where movies were about writing, plot, directing, and acting. Not who swears the most and loudest and who is the biggest asshole in the movie. Catch phrases that make rookie no names actors stars overnight where everyone in country is using that catch phrase to describe whatever current situation they're facing.

To succeed in the Golden Age of Hollywood, you really had to be able to write to make it as a writer. Unlike today where phrases and words are borrowed from other shows and movies and used for their shows and movies. The Golden Age of Hollywood wasn't cookie-cutter, but originalist.

Movies like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington from 1939 with Jimmy Stewart and many others. You can't really say there was a move like that before and there have been many attempts to make another great political movie and movie about Congress since, but most of them have come up weigh short. Mr. Smith came out in 1939 and almost either years later it's still one of the best and most popular movies in Hollywood history.

North by Northwest- still my all-time favorite movie and I would argue at least is Alfred Hitchcock's best movie, even though many others would argue for Notorious instead. There really isn't another movie like North by Northwest. Yes it's a Cold War movie involving the CIA trying to catch a traitor they believe is selling U.S. Government secrets to Russia and perhaps other communist states. So that by itself doesn't make it original. But you have a movie where ordinary people become heroes. Again that doesn't make it original, but it's how it was done.

The closing action scene where the good guys defeat the bad guys takes place on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Can't believe someone other than Alfred Hitchcock would come up with that. And then you have Cary Grant as the lead actor who arguably is the most handsome actor of all-time, but he also happens to be the best actor and also one of the funniest actors with incredible comedic timing. James Mason very similar to Cary Grant as far as what he brought to his parts, as the lead bad guy. Martin Landau playing a supporting role. The beautiful and adorable Eva Marie Saint who was also a great actress, as the lead actress.

 It wasn't a suspense movie. It wasn't a thriller. It wasn't an action movie. It wasn't a mystery. It wasn't a comedy. North by Northwest was all of those things in an action-packed movie with a lot of humor in it. That again was sell well-written, directed and delivered. Where the actors and crew knew they were part of something really special and wanted to be there and do their best work.

Today where in an era of Hollywood where TV and movies are about style and appearance. Who is up and who is down, who looks and sounds the hippest and has the most pop culture and reality TV appeal. Instead of who can actually act, who can improvise and be themselves and come off as likable and as someone who not only knows what they're doing, but can bring something different in value that perhaps hasn't been seen before. Where the biggest jerk (to put it mildly) who not only swears the most and puts people down as the most tends to be the most popular. Even if they're no better than your average reality TV star as far as their ability to act.

Today if the public likes the performer and they're so-called viral on social media and the internet, they'll continue to work and make a good living in Hollywood. Even if all their shows and movies are garbage as far as the material. Their shows and movies will continue to sell even if the critics are beating the hell out of their performances and not taking those performers seriously, let alone respecting their work.

The Classic Hollywood era was anti-reality TV. Of course they loved their beautiful, sexy, and adorable actresses. Women like Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, Ava Gardner, Lana Turner, Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, and many others were all big stars back then. And Hollywood loved their big handsome studs. Actors like Rock Hudson, Cary Grant, Dean Martin, Sydney Poitier, and many others. But the difference being that the Hollywood goddess's and gods, were more than their beautiful faces and bodies.

If you couldn't act back then, if you didn't show up for work, then you didn't work. It wasn't an era where Hollywood was trying to sell personality and popularity when it came to their characters, over substance. Classic Hollywood was a professional era where the professionals were in charge which is what makes it so great and classic. As long as reality TV is dominating TV and movies, we won't see another great era in Hollywood again.
Crash Course: Craig Benzine- The Golden Age of Hollywood: Film History