John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

TruthDig: Opinion- Scott Tucker: David McReynolds- Pacifist and Socialist, 1929-2018

Source: TruthDig- Democratic Socialist activist David McReynolds, speaks at the 2009 Left Forum 
Source: Truth Dig: Opinion- Scott Tucker: David McReynolds- Pacifist and Socialist, 1929-2018

People talk about Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, ( still but not for long the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) as far as where his politics come from and the people and movements that he looked up and how he got his Socialist politics. A lot of that can be from his upbringing being born in 1940s New York City to a Jewish immigrant family where socialism is very popular with Jewish New Yorkers especially, but with New Yorkers in general. Or coming of age in the 1960s and going to college in the early and mid 1960s when a lot of young people especially in the early days of the hippie movement were open to socialism and perhaps becoming a Socialist them self.

The New-Left ( Socialists and Communists ) emerges in the late 1960s with a lot of Baby Boomers who were coming of age getting involved with that new movement and why it was called the New-Left, because pre-1965 or so to be on the Left in America meant you supported things like the New Deal, Great Society, the civil rights movement, free speech and personal freedom, but were somewhat hawkish  on foreign policy and national security and not just anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian in general. Which is what it meant to be a Progressive and Liberal back then and still does, at least factually.

Which changed in the late 1960s with millions of young Americans now open and even supporting of socialism, but even communism as well. And as a result the Democratic Party moves to the Far-Left in 1968 and through 1972 and they get their nominee for President in Senator George McGovern, who was the Democratic Socialist of his time, the Bernie Sanders of the 1960s and 70s.

But if I had to point to one man even though I don't personally know Senator Sanders myself, I would point to David McReynolds, who was a Democratic Socialist activist from the 1950s when he was in college really till his death this year. Someone who believed in both democracy including a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, civil liberties, and personal freedom.

But to go along with a democratic socialist economic system where the Federal Government would literally be in charge of distributing the financial resources of the country to the people based on what everyone needs to live well. A national welfare state designed to make sure that everyone's economic needs are met so we don't have a wealthy people and  a lot of poor people or any poor people. That's what a socialist welfare state is designed to do for the country.

Not saying that David McReynolds and Bernie Sanders are ideological twin brothers. Senator Sanders, is not a pacifist and has voted for and supported he use of force in Congress multiple times both in the House and Senate and even though Senator Sanders is somewhat isolationist and dovish when it comes to foreign policy and national security, he's certainly not a pacifist. But economically and as it relates to social issues and personal freedom, you can easily argue that David McReynolds and Bernie Sanders have a lot in common politically.
Source: Democracy Now: Friends Remember War Registers League Activist & Socialist David McReynolds - Democratic Socialist activist David McReynolds- 1929-2018 

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ken White: 'Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers'

Source: Reason Magazine- Attacks against free speech 
Source: Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ken White: 'Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers'

I guess where I would disagree is with the title of the Reason piece where they say, "free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives." Implying that free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives, that it is from Liberals. I argue that free speech is not in danger from either of the center's of American politics the Center-Right and Center Left, Conservatives and Liberals, but that's in danger from the fringes of American politics.

Nationalist-Tribalist- Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right, who are offended by American culture and would like to see big government come in and restrict what we can see on TV and in pop culture generally. And anyone who opposes Donald Trump and his supporters are traitors ( from their perspective ) and therefor not serving of the same free speech rights as people who support Donald Trump and come from the Christian-Right Nationalist wing in and outside of the Republican Party.

And Socialists in some cases democratic but when you look at groups like ANTIFA and other self-described Communists in America, people who believe that right-wingers don't have free speech rights in America because what they say is offensive and they simply don't like what the Right ( especially Far-Right ) has to say and therefor should be shut down and silenced whenever they speak. Whenever one of these right-wingers especially Far-Rightist's like Ann Coulter tries to give a speech, you'll see Far-Left groups show up and protest her or someone else on the Far-Right and try to shut her down and shut her up. When one of these people writes a book, they'll protest bookstores and try to boycott them so the author can't sell their book.

As an actual Liberal, not a Libertarian, or Civil Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but as an actual real-life Liberal who doesn't want big government trying to manage our personal and economic affairs for us including what we say to each other and doesn't want a national babysitter or nanny state, but a real Liberal in the real sense as someone who believe in liberal values like liberal democracy and the individual rights that Liberals actually support, I believe in free speech period. Whether it comes to pornography and other forms of adult entertainment that the Christian-Right claims to hate and use to view ( pre-Donald Trump ) as a national threat to our security and morality. Or critical or even offensive speech towards minority groups or anyone else in America that the Far-Right hates.

If you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech. Which is sort of like saying if someone believes in God, they believe in God, but my point is that if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech for everyone and not just people that you tend to agree with. Like that Michael Douglas line from The American President, that America is hard and you have to want it bad because it's going to come after you. Because it's a society where you have the right to say and believe whatever you want and those rights will be defended to the hilt. But that people who tend disagree with you have the exact same constitutional First Amendment free speech rights as you do. And free speech is better and America is better when we fight for the free speech rights as others the same way that we fight for our own and the people who we tend to agree with.

Monday, September 17, 2018

The Economist: The Literature of Liberalism- Liberal Democracy: The Core of Liberalism

Source: The Economist- Liberal thinkers 
Source: The Economist: The Literature of Liberalism

There's been this ongoing debate about what liberalism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal. If you were ask me as a Liberal what it means to be a Liberal, I would tell you it means someone who believes in the defense of liberty, meaning the protection of individual rights. If you were to ask me what Liberals believe the role of government is I would tell you is to defend and conserve our individual rights. And where they can expand freedom for people who don't currently have it.

I believe this definition works for anyone who considers them self to be a Liberal and perhaps Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but that doesn't work for everyone especially people who are further left and even Far-Left, but don't see themselves as Far-Left and it's just that everyone else is out of the mainstream, but somehow they're the sane, rational, mainstream people. And instead of calling themselves Socialists or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, they prefer to be called Liberals, in some cases Progressives, and the more candid members of the Far-Left especially in America might call themselves Modern Liberals.

Even though a lot of what the Far-Left advocates for is actually illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) and not liberal at all. Like censorship when it comes to offensive and critical speech, or hate speech. Protesting against Halloween and Thanksgiving, team nicknames, because they believe those holidays are somehow racist. Using big government to make the dietary decisions for everyone and tell everybody what they can eat and drink and what we can say to each other and in some cases even what we can do with our own bodies. Otherwise known as the nanny state which is just another example of the illiberal-left, not liberal-left.

Along with all of their big centralize government views when it comes to the economy where they believe wealth should essentially outlawed and taxes so high so government can decide how much money and freedom everyone should have, because they don't want anyone to be rich or poor. As well as the belief that big centralize national government is always the best government and decentralizing governmental power is somehow dangerous, along with personal freedom and free speech being dangerous according to the illiberal-left, which is just another way of saying Far-Left or New-Left.

Even though one of the core liberal values of liberalism is that big centralize power shouldn't be trusted and always held accountable and than absolute power whether it's public power or private power corrupts absolutely. But it's not liberal values that the Far-Left believes in, but instead collectivist values and in some cases social democratic values that they believe in.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

According to Merriam Webster

Illiberalism is, "opposition to or lack of liberalism."

So someone who is against free speech and instead is in favor of censorship when it comes to language they don't like whether it's in movies or music, t-shirts, critical speech, offensive speech, hate speech even, someone who believes that speech that's offensive should be censored and that political correctness should be the policy when it comes to speech, is proposing an illiberal view.

Someone who doesn't believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, otherwise known as personal freedom even if they're pro-choice when it comes to women's reproductive rights and sexuality and romance freedom and that romantic couples shouldn't be required to get married before they start living together and having kids, even if you're pro-choice on the issues meaning things that you already agree with, but propose personal freedom in general, because you believe it's dangerous and that individuals can't be trusted to make their own decisions, you're not very pro-choice.

Someone who is pro-choice lets say on abortion, but believes gambling, junk food, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, should be outlawed, is not very pro-choice. The key when it comes to being pro-choice or not is whether you're pro-choice on abortion and sexuality, or things that you already agree with, but on issues that you might have problems with and wouldn't make those choice for yourself.

Do you believe that people should have the right to make their own personal decisions even if they may disagree with some of their decisions, or not. And if you tend to believe that people should be able to make their own personal decisions, then I suggest you're not only pro-choice, but you might be a Liberal as well. If you're not generally pro-choice, then you're not only not liberal, but probably illiberal which again is the opposite of what it means to be a Liberal.

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values. Things like free speech, personal autonomy, decentralization of power, checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government, individual rights, equal rights, equal justice for all, free speech, personal autonomy, and yes property rights and markets. Liberals don't want the government trying to do everything for everybody. Which is just one thing that separates us from Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and Theocrats on the Far-Right. And if you believe in the liberal values that I just suggested and not the illiberal values where personal freedom practically doesn't exist, because big government has so much power, then I suggest that you might be a Liberal.
Source: Central European University: Roger Scruton- Speaks on Liberalism and Open Society - Advocating liberalism and liberal democracy 


Friday, September 14, 2018

Politics and Prose: Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies'

Source: Politics and Prose- Rick Wilson at Politics and Prose in Washington 
Source: Politics and Prose: Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies'

To make the Donald Trump presidency look less depressing, at least to every insane, intelligent, honest  American let's imagine that Donald Trump is actually not President of the United States. That we never had not even one so-called reality TV star working in the most important political and government headquarters not just in the United States, but in the world. Let's just imagine that this was just some great story and mini-series put together by HBO or Showtime, maybe FX got into it. And this series was called Amateur Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or Reality Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, maybe the pros in Hollywood could come up with even better titles than that for this fictional mini-series.

Source: Go Fund Me- The Donald Trump 
If the Donald Trump presidency really was just a fictional series and the creators of that had an actor playing Trump or had Trump playing himself, this would be one of the best and funniest political fictional mini-series ever. Make it into a real series and give an entire season or multiple seasons and this show would be better and funnier than The West Wing. And The West Wing was a great funny show and in some cases even realistic. But that's unfortunately for every person who isn't a permanent resident at a mental institution, is not the reality. Our long national nightmare is heading into year three even if Democrats win back the House or Senate in a couple months or win back Congress completely, Donald Trump will still be President of the United States.

Monday, September 10, 2018

The Economist: John Stuart Mill- Against Tyranny of The Majority: The Father of Liberalism

Source: The Economist- Tyranny of The Majority 
Source: The Economist: Against The Tyranny of The Majority- The Father of Liberalism

What is this is really about is democracy and there several different forms of democracy which I'm going to explain here. And if you're familiar with this blog and my writing, you know that we believe in the liberal form of democracy which is liberal democracy which is what we advocate and I'm going to talk about here as well.

Source: The Federalist Papers- One of the father's of liberalism 
There are several different forms of democracy. Democracy in itself is just about voting and that citizens deserve the right to vote in their communities and country It's just about being able to not only vote, but having choices in who you vote for. Different party's and different candidates with the voters getting to decide who represents them in the legislature whether it's local, state, or national. Or who get to serve as the chief executive of their community, state, or country. Don't mistake democracy with freedom, because they're two different things. In free societies of course they elect their leaders and representatives through democratic elections. But you could have a country that's technically a democracy, but where you don't have much freedom. Like Russia or Venezuela, or Iran.

Source: Fact Myth- Our Founding Liberals 
What this blog promotes and what I promote with my blog is what's called liberal democracy. America is a liberal democracy, where yes we have multi-party elections, but that's not the basis of our government and not where our people get their freedom. We're a liberal democratic constitutional federal republic. With all sorts of individual rights including the right to vote, but all the right to free speech, the right to worship or not worship, the right to privacy, property rights, the right to sell-defense, even the right to education. All coming not from God or some great Socialist who decided that we should all have these rights, but from our Constitution that was created by our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America.

According to Wikipedia

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

So when someone is talking about the tyranny of the majority, they're saying that lets say in a majoritarian democracy where majority vote always rules or in a social democracy with similar outcomes where a lot of policy decisions are made through referendum, what they mean by tyranny of the majority is that the majority getting to rule over the minority and be able to make decisions on their behalf simply because they have more votes than the minority.

Anyone with a basic social studies understanding of American government and our Constitution that you could get at any quality high school in this country, knows that the majority doesn't always get their way.

Look at the U.S. Senate where you almost always 60-100 votes to pass anything, or our constitutional amendment process, where you need 2/3 majority from both the House and Senate in Congress, as well as 34-50 states to approve any constitutional amendment. Or the U.S. Supreme Court that throws out laws that were passed with a majority because they're unconstitutional. Or our Electoral College where big states don't get to rule over smaller states in the presidential election simply because their states are bigger.

In a liberal democracy, of course we have the right to vote, but we have so many other individual rights as well both personal as well as economic. We own or rent our homes instead of government deciding where we live. Law enforcement needs a warrant in order to enter our homes and property.

Our right to free speech, the right to practice or not practice religion, equal rights and justice under law.

The right not to be discriminated against and denied access in society simply because of our race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The right to make our own personal decisions and choices which is protected by our 4th Amendment.

These are just some of the examples of what makes up a liberal democracy and why I'm a Liberal Democrat ideologically, because I believe in liberal democracy. The right to be left alone and live freely in society. Along with other great liberal values like free press, rule of law, checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and limited government.
Source: Academy of Ideas: John S. Mill- On Liberty- One of the first Liberals ever 

Friday, September 7, 2018

David Niewart: Glenn Beck's- Leftist Fascism Hour: The Newspeak Version of History

Source: David Niewart- Glenn Beck, when he was still at Fox News 
Source: David Niewart: Glenn Beck's- Leftist Fascism Hour: The Newspeak Version of History

What Jonah Goldberg and I guess Glenn Beck call Liberal Fascism ( which is at least a borderline Oxymoron ) and what I change to Leftist Fascism, are far-leftists both in America and around the world. Socialists and in some cases even democratic, as well as Communists who believe they know what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees with them are not worthy of even being heard. You oppose their government or their way of thinking, you must be either corrupt or a bigot or both. According to their lack of thinking and logic.

Source: Thread Reader- Author Jonah Goldberg, on Glenn Beck's show
You go to America and we now have a young generation of Americans who not only believe that free speech is dangerous, but question freedom and whether we should even have freedom. Who question whether people should be allowed to create their own personal wealth, but also make their own personal decisions. We now have a generation of Millennials who look up to people like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro revolutionary Communists from Cuba and South America and look down at people like John Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, men who believed in individualism and individual rights, even property rights as well as free speech and personal freedom.

The reason why I said Liberal Fascism is a borderline Oxymoron, because liberalism is based off of liberal democracy.

According to Wikipedia 

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

My personal politics is liberal democratic, not meaning I'm a Liberal and a Democrat both ideologically and my political party, but as someone who believes in liberal democracy as a Liberal. We now have a young generation of Millennial's an and older generation of Americans people who are late Baby Boomers and even older who question liberal democracy and see it as threats to their way of life . That if you allow all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, politics, etc the same individual freedom as what they would call the real Americans and the true American Patriots, that weakens their America and their way of life and that can't be tolerated according to the nationalistic tribalist's on the Right. And the other fringe you have a young generation who not only question liberal democracy, but seem to believe that socialism and communism, are legitimate alternatives to liberal democracy.

So to label both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini as not only as Liberals but as Fascists, well you would be half right. Socialists and Fascists for sure, but Liberal of course not. You can't be both illiberal and liberal, it's one or the other. It would be like someone who calls them self both a Socialist and a Conservative. The two political movements go against each other like cars driving on the opposite side of the street. Other than maybe Joe Stalin, it's hard to find another person who has ever lived anywhere in the world who is more illiberal ( not liberal ) than Adolf Hitler who sought out to murder people simply because of their ethnicity and that they weren't ethnic Germans, Nazi Germany attempted to murder every single European Jew.

I want to correct Glenn Beck and his Fox News Tea Party panel about one other thing. The word Progressive, is used as a substitute for not just Liberal, but every other political faction on the Left and even Right, when the fact is Progressive is a real political term and has real meaning. You can be Progressive and Liberal just like someone can be tall and strong or tall and fat, but tall is not another word for strong or fat, they're different physical conditions and attributes. Progressive, is different from both Liberal and Socialist. You can be a Liberal who believes in progress through government action which is what a Progressive is which is someone who believes in progress through government action. Someone like a Theodore Roosevelt. But you can be a Conservative who believes in progress through government action and be a right-wing Progressive, someone like Nelson Rockefeller.

I respect Glenn Beck sometimes. I had more respect for him about a year ago when he was one of the strongest never-trumpers around, but then when I guess he saw that was hurting his bottomline his criticism of President Donald Trump and his Nationalist movement is now far away and infrequent. But he and his Tea Party crew are just dead wrong about Liberals and liberalism. You can't be a Liberal and also believe that people should be murdered simply because of their race and ethnicity. And you can't be a Liberal if you believe that people who disagree with you don't have a right to be heard. Those aren't liberal values, but illiberal values whether they come from the Right or the Left.


Thursday, September 6, 2018

Rowan and Martin's Laugh In: Martha Mitchell- Isn't Overstepping Cocktail Party

Source: Rowan and Martin's Laugh In- Actress portrayal of Martha Mitchell 
Source: Rowan and Martin's Laugh In: Martha Mitchell- Isn't Overstepping Cocktail Party

I said this on my Google+ and Twitter pages last night, but could you imagine Martha Mitchell with a Twitter page back during Watergate? She was like a gossip columnist with inside accounts of what was going on during Watergate simply because she was married to the Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell. Not that I believed he was filling in her chatty wife who was basically the motormouth of Washington during the early and mid 1970s. Who would share any little dirty secret that she could come up with regardless of who it might help or hurt.

Source: World News- Washington motormouth Martha Mitchell 
The best gossip columnists are the gossip columnists not just with inside sources, but credible inside sources so what they write and say in public doesn't sound like fiction or a like a good soap opera, but there's real truth to what they're revealing about someone or some people, or some situation. Hollywood actress Shelley Winters, was a gossip columnist, as well as an author, with a great sense of humor who was very bright in general, but with her humor as well in-between acting parts. Martha Mitchell who just happened to be the wife of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States in Attorney General John Mitchell, fit that bill as well.


Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Libertarianism.Org: Free Thoughts- Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck- The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

Source: Libertarianism.Org- The perfect title for this piece 
Source: Libertarianism.Org: Free Thoughts- Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck- The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

If there is a moral collapse of Evangelical America, it can be summed up in two words, which are Donald Trump. I'm talking about the political wing of the Christian-Right in America who are dominated by Evangelicals who base their political on their interpretations of the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. And they see Donald Trump who just a few years ago was an Atheist or at best an Agnostic where religion had little if no impact on his life until he became a Presbyterian a few years ago, the Christian-Right sees Donald Trump and his presidency as their ticket to accomplish a lot of things that they couldn't do with really any other Republican President ever.

The Christian-Right, has made a bargain with devil ( so to speak ) with Donald Trump and have calculated that they're willing to tolerate anything that Donald Trump does all his bad personal behavior, maturity, temper, hate for any dissent against him, lack of experience and knowledge about the issues that he talks so much about and has to deal with as President, his bigotry towards people who don't support him and have decided to sum up all of President Trump's bad behavior into, "he's not a typical politician and does things differently."

And the Christian-Right have just swallowed President Trump's talking points when it comes to negative news about him into saying, "well, we don't know these things are true." Or "well, these Republicans even who don't like Donald Trump are just saying these bad things about him, because they're part of the establishment and are simply trying to defend that." Just as long as President Trump delivers on what he promised the Christian-Right. And appoints judges and justices that will one day will rule that abortion, and same-sex marriage are illegal, and there's no constitutional right to privacy even under the 4th Amendment. Which would be mean big government could then come into Americans personal lives and decide who Americans can sleep with and do with their personal time.

The Christian-Right-Wing of the Republican Party, that back in the 1990s saw pornography, same-sex marriage, and adultery, as threats to national security and morality and therefor must be outlawed in America, are now saying that they don't care about those things at least when it comes to the people they support politically. Adulterous affairs and pornography that their Republicans might have been involved with are none of the government's business, because these Republicans are their people and on their side. And because of this have lost all of their credibility when it comes to speaking about the personal lives and personal behavior of Americans including politicians, because they back and defend politicians who've lived similar lives and have done similar things. Whether it;'s adultery, pornography, or whatever it may be.


Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Salon: Timothy Denevi- Hunter S. Thompson in Chicago, 1968: 'The Battle For The Democratic Party's Soul'

Source: Salon Magazine- Hunter Thompson and the 1968 Democratic Party National Convention 
Source: Salon: Timothy Denevi- Hunter S. Thompson in Chicago, 1968: 'The Battle For The Democratic Party's Soul'

If 1967 was the summer of love, then 1968 was the summer of discontentment, revolution, upheaval, whatever other big words that you prefer to voice a national unhappiness with the country and how things were going. It was the summer where once again millions of Baby Boomers were coming of age and pissed off at society, but especially the Vietnam War and feeling the need not just to speak out against the war, but to make their feelings known and to demand real change or face real consequences. The people would face those consequences being the government at three levels, local state and federal.

If you were a Baby Boomer in 1968, ( an American born in the 1940s and 50s ) life for you was pretty swell ( to use a word from the 1950s ) before you deiced to become a rebel and take on the man and the establishment that was created to give you a life where you could live freely and not have to worry about crime, poverty, being able to get a good education including college. Especially if you were of Anglo-Saxon background, ( people of English ethnicity ) just as long as toed the party line ( so to speak ) and weren't a disrupter. You weren't a woman who had some wild idea that you were going to become a lawyer. Or an African-American who had the nerve to enter a quality high school or go to college.

I have mixed feelings about the 1960s especially the late 1960s as someone who wasn't born until about ten years after the summer of 1968 where the only protests and the closest things I got to see to rioting in highs school, were students complaining about the low quality of food at lunch or students getting into fights at the nearby McDonald's because someone believed someone took one of their fries. I love the individualism and the personal freedom of that decade as a Liberal. This feeling that being an American was about being yourself and not having to follow in your parents footsteps, especially your father's just because that's what they decided to do with their lives.

But on the other side I hate the violence of that decade especially 1968. The rioting, the high crime rates, law enforcement going to far in how they responded to the young protesters. Young Boomers, who were given all the opportunities in the world to make great lives for themselves and instead of feeling grateful that instead of growing up in some authoritarian state where the government decides what kind of lives everyone in the country is going to have, they grew up in America where they had that freedom to make those decisions for themselves and instead of feeling grateful, they become political terrorists in many cases. Deciding to rob banks as a political statement because they claimed to hate our capitalist economic system. Far-Left socialist groups like The Weather Underground and others.

I get the opposition to the Vietnam War and if was a young man back then I would've hated that war and just what I've read, seen, and heard about it I hate that war myself. And I get this feeling that it's time for the Democratic Party to change and not just oppose the Vietnam War outright but create a new politics by abandoning the right-wing Dixiecrats and moving the Democratic Party in a more leftist direction. Socialist to be more accurate, with groups like Students For a Democratic Society supporting people like Senator George McGovern and others.

But that's what liberal democracy is for. You don't like the direction that the country is going in, you're more than free to speak out and campaign against it, and even offer an alternative vision for where you believe the country should go. But when you don't win and get your way, the answer is to not turn to violence to try to force your views and policies which is what The Weather Underground and other Socialist groups did back then. But instead take your losses and regroup and get ready for the next elections.
Source: E.P. James MacAdams: Hunter S. Thompson On Richard Nixon - The eyes of Hunter Thompson on 1968 

Monday, September 3, 2018

The Hollywood Reporter: Erik Liberman- Jayne Mansfield: The First Reality Star?

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Baby Jayne Mansfield 
Source: The Hollywood Reporter: Erik Liberman: Jayne Mansfield: The First Reality Star?

Jayne Mansfield as the first reality star? Well, their several answers that I could give to that.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Baby Jayne Mansfield 
One, reality star or reality TV, those terms didn't come into American culture until the late 1990s. Jayne Mansfield, died in a horrible car crash in 1967. So just based on that, no obviously not. And reality stars or reality TV, aren't actually reality stars or reality TV. They're celebrities who are famous for acting out and being outrageous. For getting kicked out of parties and nightclubs ( just ask Khloe Kardashian and Paris Hilton ) who in many cases are simply famous because of their father's last name. ( Again, ask Khloe Kardashian and Paris Hilton )

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Kitten Jayne Mansfield 
And reality TV has as much to do with reality as people claiming to see UFO's in New Mexico. I would have just as hard of a time believing someone like that who claims they're sober, let alone saw any UFO's. Reality TV, is nothing more than amateur acting hour where cast members ( which is what they are ) are encouraged perhaps even ordered to act out and be outrageous on the show by the director and producer. So no, I don't believe Jayne Mansfield was one of the first reality TV stars, but one of if not the first tabloid stars in the TV age. Where she was famous for being famous to a certain extent, but had so much more than than beyond her goddess looks and baby girl face and personality, including a keen intelligence and wit.

If you look at Jayne Mansfield's career, you could point at two movies that were essentially about what would be called reality TV, but about 40 years later. You could also look at her post-Hollywood career where she's literally making her own movies that would be like what are called reality TV shows. Where a camera crew would follow her around and it would be like a day in the life of Jayne Mansfield. She went on tour in Italy in 1965-66 and had a camera crew following her around and she would narrate the film herself.

The first film that Jayne does that was sort about reality TV was a movie called The Girl Can't Help it, where she plays the opposite of herself. And this might be the first so-called reality TV movie ever where a Hollywood filmmaker who hasn't had a big hit in several years, but happens to be dating a blonde baby-face Goddess played by Jayne Mansfield and decides that he can make a star out of her simply because of her physical appearance and personality. Sound like any so-called reality stars today?

The second film that she did that was sort of about reality TV, was Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter from 1957. Where she plays a young popular actress who is tired of the her dumb blonde image ( just like the real Jayne Mansfield ) and hired a publicity man to give her a new image as a woman who doesn't go from man to man and is ready settle down. Jayne, plays herself in Rock Hunter and gives an Oscar performance as herself.

The dumb blonde image about Jayne Mansfield, was exactly that just an image that people saw about her and believed that must be who she really is. This gorgeous, adorable, sexy woman, who needs help tying her shoes and spelling her first name. ( Sort of like Kelly Bundy on Married with Children ) But the facts are she was a very sharp, very funny woman, who always knew exactly what she was doing. The problem that she had is that she didn't know her place in Hollywood. ( To sound cold ) and saw herself as more than a comedic actress and comedian who was perfect for comedies including musical comedies like The Girl Can't Help It. And wanted to be a dramatic actress instead. Not that she couldn't do drama, but she was cut out for comedy.

I see Jayne Mansfield, as a Bette Midler but not as talented as someone who was put on this planet to sing and make people laugh. Bette, does comedy shows at her concerts and is hilarious in all of her Hollywood roles. I believe if Jayne just stuck with comedy and music, I think we're talking about one of the best comedic and musical stars certainly of her generation and as someone who might have had more ability than even Marilyn Monroe in this area. And without Jayne's horrible car accident in 1967 and had she lived a normal life in years and just stick to doing what she did best which was comedy and music, she never leaves Hollywood because there would've always been work for comedians and comedic actresses, especially for woman like Jayne who was so adorable which was one of the things that made her so funny as a person as well as her quickness, as well as so gorgeous and sexy.
Source: BBC: Jayne Mansfield- Full-Length Documentary- Baby Jayne Mansfield