John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Jason Galavo: George Carlin- 'Pissing Off The Feminists'

Source:Jason Galvao- George Carlin: an expert at pissing off feminists. 
This is from George Carlin's I believe 1990 HBO performance where's he's talking about it not being that difficult and not requiring much talent to piss off a feminist. And he talks about entering some office in New York at Ms. Magazine or National Organization For Women or some other left-wing feminist office in New York and says: "which one of you cupcakes would like to come home with me tonight and cook me a meal and give me a blow job?"

From Jason Galvao

Source:Scraps From The Loft- "George Carlin: Doin It Again (1990)" 
Yeah, if you're trying to piss off a feminist or any women who is to the left of I don't know Phyllis Schlafly ( just to throw out a name ) that would probably do the trick. But how big a population could American women who are to the left of Phyllis Schlafly be anyway, 70-80%: oh wait, we're only talking about out of a 100, so I could see where George might be onto something here.

Now if we were in Saudi Arabia or stuck in the Bible Belt somewhere on the way to an actual city or someplace where people actually have next door neighbors instead of cows or barns, that's not trapped in the 1920s culturally, you would have a hard time finding a person who doesn't have that attitude, let alone pissing someone off with that attitude.

Now at risk of sounding serious for a moment: ( and it might not even be that long ) the actual definition of a feminist is someone: "who believes in the advocacy of women's rights based on equality of the sexes." To put it simply: people who believe that men and women shouldn't be rewarded or punished simply for being a man or a woman. That men and women should be treated equally under law. Sounds like mainstream logic that most Americans regardless of their gender can get behind and probably already support.

But of course the most mainstream of countries including America all have those people who don't fit in with the establishment. They where mink coats in the summer, put mayonnaise on their cheeseburgers, wear tank tops and leather jackets at the opera, and tuxedos at their favorite fast food joint. And I don't mean this literally, but they don't fit in with society culturally or politically with the establishment.

And when it comes to feminists and feminism, they either believe that women shouldn't even have the right to vote, let alone be aloud to work and basically just be slaves for their man. Which would be Phyllis Schlafly-Ann Coulter Far-Right view of the women's place in the world.

And then from the Socialist-Left and radical feminists or Marxist-Feminists ( as some feminists call themselves ) , you're talking about people who don't believe in equality, but feminine rule in the sense that women should be running everything and that men aren't just pigs, but don't even matter. Those are the feminists that George Carlin was talking about in this video. 

Andy Snowslayer: Magnum Force 1973- 'Excuse Me Captain: Can You Fly': Clint Eastwood Stars

Source:Andy Snowslayer- From Magnum Force: which is the 2nd movie in the Dirty Harry series.
"One of my favorite scenes and lines from the Dirty Harry series. To capture hijackers, Dirty Harry poses as an airline pilot. As the jet taxi, the confounded copilot says, "Excuse me captain, can you fly?"

From Andy Snowslayer

Source:COUB- "Dirty Harry: Excuse me, can you fly?"
On a personal note: I don't know about you, but I'm up for another Dirty Harry marathon on Sundance or AMC, or whatever the network. Maybe because the weather is changing and the summer might be finally ending in Washington ( knock on wood ) that the Dirty Harry movies are all shot and take place in San Francisco ( perhaps the only big city in America that gets year round fall and spring ) or  I just love Clint Eastwood, but it takes me back to a place when movie were just movies ( for the most part ) and were a great escape from reality. Not designed to make some political statement.

This scene to me is the perfect example of Clint Eastwood not just kicking ass, but being the master smart-ass and comedic actor that he always was. You could flip a coin as far as who is the best action/comedy actor or all-time: Burt Reynolds or Clint Eastwood. I would go with Burt because he was a funnier man, but Eastwood is in that same class of actors who could kick ass and make people laugh in the exact same scene. Probably the best ever at combing both roles as the tough guy and comedian in the same role, scene, and movie.

This is the perfect Dirty Harry scene, because why is San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan called Dirty Harry, because he takes all the dirty jobs ( meaning dangerous ) that no other cop would be insane, drunk, high enough, or have the balls to do and always gets his man and successfully completes his missions. With his boss the Lieutenant always getting on his case about not following police procedure and doing it by the book. If Inspector Callahan waited for his Lieutenant's OK on this, the plane probably either takes off with all of those hostages, or the airport is shut down with SFPD having to deal with a serious hostage crisis. So this is the perfect Dirty Harry scene. 

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Storm: Dallas- Barbara Eden Guess-Stars: Michelle's Sweet Revenge

Source:Storm- Barbara Eden: guess-starring on Dallas in 1991.
"Dallas: Michelle takes over Ewing Oil and fires J.R."

From Storm

Source:Fan Pop- "Dallas - Barbara Eden photo"
If you're familiar with the J.R Ewing character on Dallas, you know he made his career out of screwing people over and getting away with it. ( Sound any current U.S. President you know ) So to see someone return the favor on him ( so to speak ) looks real sweet regardless if you're a fan of JR Ewing or not. And I actually personally like the guy as far as how he's able to sum people up and put them in their right places and do with great humor. But the guy is a business shark ( to be too kind ) who advances his own career by eating people alive and putting them out-of-business.

Larry Hagman and Barbara Eden, not only did I Dream of Jeannie which is one of the most popular and perhaps best sitcoms of all-time together in the 1960s and were also longtime friends who had great chemistry together. So to see them together on the greatest soap opera of all-time fighting it out is pretty sweet, but what makes it even sweeter is the background in their relationship in which they had this little tussle. They were former lovers and JR fathered Michell'e ( played by Barbara Eden ) wha would've been their baby a long time ago and he walked out on her and she aborted what would've been their baby. And now she's getting back at him by taking his company away from him. Sort of the definition of sweet revenge: you screw me and I'll screw you even harder. 

The Final 24: Nicole Brown Simpson

Source:The Final 24- OJ and Nicole Brown Simpson. Perhaps when they were still married.
"Vibrant, funny, and beautiful, Nicole Brown Simpson appears to have it all. With loads of money, a great body, and two adorable children, the ex-wife of football legend O.J. Simpson is living the Hollywood dream. In 24 hours, however, the dream will be brutally shattered, Nicole will be dead, and her ex-husband will stand accused in the murder trial of the century."

From The Final 24

Source:ABC News- "OJ Simpson trial: where are they now?"
I'm not sure if Nicole Brown Simpson was meant to be murdered by OJ Simpson or anyone else, but he definitely had an obsession for her to the point where he basically said: "if I can't have her, no one else can." Which is about as clever as saying: how are you doing, or this is some weather we're having. But my point is this is basically a pretty simple case. I'm not sure OJ was in love with her as much as he was obsessed with her. And probably saw Nicole as his personal trophy or pet that he could do anything that he wanted with.

And yes, I think OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife Nicole Brown as well as their mutual friend Ronald Goldman. And if you don't believe me, just ask all of OJ's DNA and blood at the crime scene and look at the physical evidence not just on Nicole, but OJ as well. OJ, having no alibi and plenty of motive to kill her as well doesn't help him. And if you want to argue the case the opposite way, you're going to need a helluva lot more than some whacked out, high as a skyscraper conspiracy theory that the Los Angeles Police planted all of that evidence that makes to clear that OJ murdered Nicole. You're going to need some actual facts that even's OJ's supposed all star team of defense lawyers weren't able to offer that their client OJ Simpson  didn't murder his ex-wife Nicole Simpson. 

Monday, September 16, 2019

Classic Film & TV Cafe: The 10th Victim 1965- 'Clip with Ursula Andress and Marcello Mastroianni'

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe- Swiss Goddess Ursula Andress: in The 10th Victim, from 1965.
"Ursula Andress and Marcello Mastroianni fall in love while trying to kill each other, endorse products for TV, and avoid being shot by other assassins. And everyone tries to look groovy!" 

From Classic Film & TV Cafe

Source:The Famous Fix- "The 10th Victim Videos..."
This scene doesn't look that different from Ursula Andress's first scene in James Bond's Dr. No from 1962, where she appears out of the middle of nowhere on the beach in Bahamas wearing nothing but a bikini. She's a little more conservatively dressed here, ( little, might be an overstatement ) and the plot is a little different. But here she is with a man she doesn't trust and perhaps doesn't even like and is being chased by assassins who want to kill both of them. And they sort of have to work together just to survive the experience.

Fathom from 1967 with Raquel Welch and Tony Francoisa, doesn't look much different from this scene as well. A man and woman who are after the same goal, but start off as competitors to achieve the same objective, but then discover they're better off working with each other to achieve the same objective. Just replace Ursula with Raquel, but what's different: two young, hot baby face goddesses who seem childlike and immature, because they're so adorable and yet both absolutely gorgeous and very sexy. But both are very sharp and tough and not meant to be messed with, if you know what's good for you.

Mean Guns from 1997: if you're not familiar with this movie, you might be on a very long waiting list of people that stretches an entire continent of people waiting to get into the club of people who've never heard of this movie. Not sure if it even qualifies as a c-movie. And other than Ice-T and Christopher Lambert, you probably wouldn't be familiar with anyone else in the movie. Unless you just have some obsession for b and c-movies and watch a tone of them. But the plot in that movie is very similar to The 10th Victim: you organize all the assassins into one place and then let them go at it and try to knock each other off with the sole survivor winning a big pot of money or whatever the award is. With the apparent goal to cut back on violence by having the killers kill each other.

To be completely honest here: (for a change, ha, ha) I've never actually watched The 10th Vicim and until 5 minutes ago I've never even heard of this movie. And perhaps at some point I'll watch the entire movie and tell you what I think about it. But the plot and idea has been used since and perhaps before. And it looks like a very entertaining movie ( not just Ursula Andress ) and looks like it's worth watching based on that alone and perhaps for no other reason. 

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Anthony Kronman: 'The Assault on American Excellence'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Michael Shermer: interviewing Anthony Kronman about his book.
"The former dean of Yale Law School argues that the feverish egalitarianism gripping college campuses today is out of place at institutions whose job is to prepare citizens to live in a vibrant democracy. In his tenure at Yale, Anthony Kronman has watched students march across campus to protest the names of buildings and seen colleagues resign over emails about Halloween costumes. He is no stranger to recent confrontations at American universities. But where many see only the suppression of free speech, the babying of students, and the drive to bury the imperfect parts of our history, Kronman recognizes in these on-campus clashes a threat to our democracy. Shermer and Kronman discuss:

• free speech vs. hate speech
• how language affects how we think about other people
• diversity of characteristics (race, gender) vs. diversity of viewpoints
• the search for universal truths vs. understanding other’s perspectives
• affirmative action in the academy: from the University of California to Harvard
• taking down statues of Hitler and Stalin vs. taking down statues of Confederate Generals
• the problem of applying current moral values to the past, and
• how to reform the academy to refocus on excellence.

Anthony T. Kronman served as the dean of Yale Law School from 1994–2004, and has taught at the university for forty years. He is the author or coauthor of five books, including The Assault on American Excellence; Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life; and Confessions of a Born-Again Pagan.

This dialogue was recorded on August 12, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."

From Skeptic

Source:Skeptic Magazine- "Science Salon and Science Archives"
I realize I'm not on expert of college having not even gong through a whole year of college and I'll be the first to admit that, but if college is for anything it's to prepare young adults for life in the real world.

College is not a gigantic spaceship to the Planet Paradise or Planet Utopia where there's no such thing as any bigotry, including racism and life is supposed to be swell ( to use a 1950s word ) or awesome, ( to use a Millennial word ) for everyone on the planet. But college is supposed to represent life and what life looks like on both the outside, as well as in college. All the good, the bad, the in between, awards for performing well, consequences for doing poorly, steep consequences for breaking the rules. People who think like you that you even like or love. As well as people who just don't think like you, but where you're so far apart what the person believes and says angers you and you even hate what they have to say and what they think.

College is not a free ride, ( even for the athletes and cheaters ) everything that people are supposed to gain there is supposed to be justified. You're supposed to earn your good grades and other experiences there and suffer the consequences when you don't do well, or even do poorly, or even break the rules. And people who go there regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, culture, politics, etc, thinking that they're entitled to never have to see or hear anything that they don't like or disagree with, don't belong in college. And perhaps would be better off to moving to Planet Utopia or Paradise where they never have to see or hear anything that they dislike.

Sort of like hardcore Libertarians who believe they should never have to pay any taxes, because they've never personally approved of the programs that their taxes pay for: well: if you don't want to pay taxes in America or anywhere else, go look for, find, and move to a place where there's no taxation. Or get elected to office and try to make the case for why there shouldn't be any taxation. But until the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl, if not even longer  ( to use an NFL analogy ) you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

For these so-called Che Guevara a man they don't even understand, (by the way and yet somehow they got into college ) loving so-called social justice warriors, who really are just illiberal leftists, ( Neo-Communists if you will ) who believe that anyone who isn't of European background and who has dark skin is entitled to never having to see or hear anything that they disapprove of, you should find another platform or place to express your fascist views other than college. Which is supposed to be an arena of ideas and liberal democracy where all views are heard and debated. Not some social laboratory where the scientists there are supposed to design the perfect people ( in their minds ) as far as how humans are supposed to look and think. And where everyone else need not apply.  

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

TED Talks: Mara Pavula- ' If You Think Politics is a Circus, Think Again'

Source:TED- Mara Pavula, speaking to TED.
"Would you say that sometimes political processes can become… a circus? Consider this the next time you want to use this metaphor — in reality, the circus is a tight-knit community of hardworking individuals with a deep trust in one another.

"The circus’ diverse history can teach us a lot about cultivating a diverse and inclusive society — Māra Pāvula, a facilitator of contemporary circus in Europe — shows us how. Mara is an enthusiast of a very unique and special culture - that of contemporary circus. She had been studying Intercultural Relations between Latvia and France when in 2012 Mara headed to Paris to fulfill her dream of entering the circus world, as France had always played an important role in the evolution of contemporary circus culture.

"While studying her Masters in University 8 of Paris, she established “Next Door Circus”, a platform dedicated to contemporary circus in the Baltics. Since 2013 she has been co-organizing the contemporary circus festival Re Riga! In 2016 Mara returned to Latvia, established the artist residency program "Sansusī", and continued her research and production activities. As of  September 2017, Mara has been running the Riga Circus School, a platform that provides amateur and professional educational activities as well as audience development strategy under the Riga Circus."

From TED Talks

According to Google a circus is: "a traveling company of acrobats, clowns, and other entertainers which gives performances, typically in a large tent, in a series of different places."

Now think about the U.S. Congress for a moment and then I suggest to you return to your real world where you can maintain your sanity: you're talking about 535 members of Congress that work in two chambers, that travel to Washington and around the rest of country giving performances, ( that they call speeches ) what members of Congress from both the House and Senate do for a living at taxpayers expense, doesn't look much different from a professional circus. You're talking about people who come to Washington from all over the country to work and then go home 1-2 times a month sometimes less than that, depending on where they actually live and how important in Congress that they are. Plus whatever other responsibilities that they have to their party.

Trust me: ( even it's just for a second ) I actually don't get pleasure from making fun of members of Congress or any other group of politicians that American taxpayers are forced to pay for the lack of services that they receive from these people. There are at least 100 other things that I rather do. But sometimes you have to call a dog, a dog and a cat, a cat. You need to cut through the bullshit ( pardon my language ) and call things what they are.

Calling American politicians by enlarge and there are some good people who are paid at taxpayer expense who are actually good, intelligent, productive people, including politicians, but politicians as a profession look like not much more than a large group of performers. Except that every taxpayer in America is required to pay these performers salaries. 

Carlos Esnaola: Thunderball 1965- 'Official Trailer': Starring James Bond and Claudine Auger

Source:Carlos Esnaola- French Goddess Claudine Auger, as Domino in Thunderball.
"Thunderball (1965) is the fourth spy film in the James Bond series starring Sean Connery as the fictional MI6 agent James Bond. It is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Ian Fleming, which in turn was based on an original screenplay by Jack Whittingham. It was directed by Terence Young with screenplay by Richard Maibaum and John Hopkins."

"The film follows Bond's mission to find two NATO atomic bombs stolen by SPECTRE, which holds the world ransom for £100 million in diamonds, in exchange for not destroying an unspecified major city in either England or the United States (later revealed to be Miami). The search leads Bond to the Bahamas, where he encounters Emilio Largo, the card-playing, eye-patch wearing SPECTRE Number Two. Backed by CIA agent Felix Leiter and Largo's mistress, Domino, Bond's search culminates in an underwater battle with Largo's henchmen. The film had a complex production, with four different units and about a quarter of the film consisting of underwater scenes.[1]Thunderball was the first Bond film shot in widescreen Panavision and the first to have over a two hour running time."

"Thunderball was associated with a legal dispute in 1961 when former Ian Fleming collaborators Kevin McClory and Jack Whittingham sued him shortly after the 1961 publication of the novel, claiming he based it upon the screenplay the trio had earlier written in a failed cinematic translation of James Bond. The lawsuit was settled out of court and Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, fearing a rival McClory film, allowed him to retain certain screen rights to the novel's story, plot and characters.[2]"

"The film was a success, earning a total of $141.2 million worldwide, exceeding the earnings of the three previous Bond films. In 1966, John Stears won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects[3] and production designer Ken Adam was also nominated for a BAFTA award.[4] Thunderball is, to date, the most financially successful movie of the series after adjusting for inflation. Some critics and viewers showered praise on the film and branded it a welcome addition to the series, while others complained of the repetitively monotonous aquatic action and prolonged length. In 1983, Warner Brothers released a second film adaptation of the novel under the title Never Say Never Again."

From Carlos Esnaola

Source:Keith Loves Movies- "Countdown to Spectre: Thunderball 1965"
In the off chance there's anyone who is interested in watching anything other than talking heads screaming at each other on cable news, or reality TV, and other celebrity news programming, Roger Goodell's NFL which is at this point doesn't look anything more than a Hollywood movie as well, Turner Classic Movies ( or TCM ) has made Thursday night James Bond night all September. Just a little programing note for you and there will probably be more posts on this blog about James Bond this month and perhaps into October as well.

Last Thursday night, I was watching the first part of the TCM James Bond marathon and they played Dr. No, ( with Sean Connery and Ursula Andress ) from Russia With Love, ( with Sean Connery and Daniela Bianchi ) Goldfinger, ( with Sean Connery and Honor Blackman ) and Thunderball with Sean Connery and French Goddess, as well as Babydoll and actress Claudine Auger. I saw this movie back in February and was so impressed with Claudine Auger that I've been wanting to see this movie again, but it hasn't been shown against, or at least when I've been able to see it. Saw last Thursday night and decided to record it.

When I think of James Bond movies, I sort of look at them like Alfred Hitchcock movies: they're great in the sense that they're very entertaining, exciting, cleverly written, gorgeous, sexy, adorable women like let's say Claudine Auger, ( to use as an example ) but not great in the sense that they're trying to deliver any special social or political message and meant to be taken seriously like a Sidney Poitier movie. But more like they just want people to have a great time watching the film. A great night out ( if you will ) and there's nothing wrong with that and I'm a big James Bond as well as Sean Connery fan. People need their escapes and breaks from reality and Thunderball is that great escape and great time that all of us need in life to make life easier for us because of all the stress and nonsense that we all have to deal with. 

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

The Atlantic: Opinion- Olgan Khazan: ' Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s'

Source:The Atlantic- Jane Fonda's workout routine?
"There’s a meme aimed at Millennial catharsis called “Old Economy Steve.” It’s a series of pictures of a late-70s teenager, who presumably is now a middle-aged man, that mocks some of the messages Millennials say they hear from older generations—and shows why they’re deeply janky. Old Economy Steve graduates and gets a job right away. Old Economy Steve “worked his way through college” because tuition was $400. And so forth."

Read more of Olga Khazan's piece at The Atlantic

Source:Bony To Bombshell- "The Skinny on why you're so Skinny"
"More than a third of adults in the United States are obese. This statistic is often attributed to a confluence of unhealthy dietary practices, sedentary lifestyles, and genetics. But we may be missing the bigger picture.

A 2015 study revealed that people today are 10 percent heavier than they were in the 1980s—even with the same diets and exercise regimens. A new episode of The Idea File investigates the plethora of complex factors that may be contributing to our increasing BMI, including a changing microbiome and toxic chemicals in the environment." 

Also from The Atlantic

I guess what I'll be talking about here is not so much skinny vs. fat, but skinny vs. strong and big bone, skinny vs. curvy people, skinny vs. healthy. As opposed to skinny vs fat, which is what The Atlantic is talking about here.

When I was growing up ( in the 1980s and early 90s, for the most part ) if you were even curvy and big bone , a lot of young women let's say especially of a suburban, preppy background saw you as fat. Back then the most beautiful women were considered tall, blonde, of Anglo, Scandinavian, or Northern Slav ethnic background, and were rail-thin. In the 1980s valley girls were in and big bone strong women were out, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Valley girls dominated American pop culture really up until the early 90s or so when we started learning about the dangers of self-starvation and being too skinny, as well as tobacco.

By the time I graduated high school in the 1990s, valley girls were still around, but you also had strong, curvy, big bone girls and women. You also had tall, athletic looking girls and women. Girls and women who looked like pro tennis players and other professional female athletes. Hip hop and R&B was becoming huge in the 1990s with young Americans of all races and ethnicities and you were seeing women who obviously weren't valley girls, but strong, healthy, athletic looking women instead.

Go up to the late 1990s with the return of skin-tight, dark wash, designer denim jeans and skin-tight denim jeans that were purposely designed for girls and women with curve appeal and rail-thin goes out and curve appeal comes in and has been with us for 20 years now. Even valley girls today who walk around staring at their smartphones with their favorite cup of coffee in their hands, who are addicted to celebrity culture, who talk and act like their favorite so-called celebrities, have curves and are even tall and curvy. Even if they also have Scandinavian blonde hair.

When  I was growing up, seeing a tall blonde woman with curve appeal, was as common as seeing whales flying over skyscrapers. Perhaps more common than that, but you get the idea. Today, tall, curvy, sexy blondes, who are also valley girls, the girls and women who are supposed to view curve appeal as fat, are common today. Because curve appeal is not just in, but becoming universal where skinny women are trying to get stronger and develop their own curve appeal. 

CBS News: 'President Trump Has Fired National Security Adviser John Bolton'

Source:CBS News- Former President Donald Trump NSA John Bolton.
"National Security Adviser John Bolton handed in his resignation Tuesday morning at President Trump's request, the president announced on Twitter. Bolton had clashed with other members of the administration, notably Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on foreign policy issues."

From CBS News

Source:CNBC- "President Trump says he's fired National Security Adviser John Bolton"
I'm not a dove obviously as a JFK Liberal, but John Bolton is way to the right of me on foreign policy and national security and yet I see President Trump's firing of National Security Adviser John Bolton as a bad thing.

Whatever you think of John Bolton's politics at least as it relates to foreign policy and national security, at least he's a professional. Unlike a lot of if not most of the people that Donald Trump trusts ( assuming he actually trusts anyone ) who are really just yes men and women to the President and at best right-wing political activists who look at public policy exclusively through cultural and partisan lens, instead of looking at issues and policy based on the evidence. Whatever you think of John Bolton, at least he was giving the President of the United States sound advice, based on evidence. And not just telling the President what he wants to hear just to stay in his good graces.

As far as who might replace John Bolton; what sane, sober, intelligent, national security and foreign policy professional person, which is exactly what the President of the United States needs from their NSA, would take this job and work for President Donald Trump, when you know you could get fired simply for doing your job. Donald Trump, has never been a man who makes decisions based on evidence and what's the right thing to do, especially if the evidence and facts contradicts what he should do.

The President could appoint another yes man like a Michael Flynn and see that person crash and burn within a few months, because we learn that person has business contacts and interests in countries that are at odds with us that this person failed to disclose in their background check. Or the President could appoint another professional like a Henry McMaster or John Bolton who'll get fired simply for doing their jobs. Donald Trump is not the king of reality TV for nothing: he's nothing if not unreliable and unpredictable. 

Monday, September 9, 2019

Last Week Tonight: John Oliver- The Filibuster

Source:Last Week Tonight- A 19 minute John Oliver filibuster on the filibuster and not one Senator objected. LOL
"John Oliver explains why filibusters exist, why they shouldn't, and why it's stupid to drink coffee like a cat."

From Last Week Tonight

Source:The AV Club- "John Oliver filibusters the filibuster on Last Week Tonight"
I guess my question for John Oliver would be: does he want to end the filibuster today, or as soon as the next Democratic Congress is sworn in with a Democratic President, like let's say in January, 2021. Which would be the next possible opportunity for Democrats to have complete control of Congress and The White House at the same time.

The honest and unfortunately less popular view for ending the filibuster is that people who actually take this view is that they don't believe in the filibuster, period. They want complete democratic rule and for the majority to rule at all times. Which was the view that Tom Harkin who served in Congress for 40 years, including six terms in the Senate took. He hated the filibuster all together and wanted to completely eliminate it, regardless of who was in control of Congress and who the President was.

But unfortunately the more popular and common view when it comes to the filibuster in Congress whether they're in the House or Senate, Democrat or Republican is: "we're in favor of the filibuster, when the other party is in control of the Senate. Especially when they're also in control of the House. And even more important than that: when the other party is in control of Congress and the presidency. If we have a large minority in the Senate or just 41 seats, we want to able to use that power to stop the majority party at all times."

"But when we're in control of Congress, we want to eliminate the Senate filibuster, because we see at as undemocratic and an absolute abuse of power by the minority against the majority." At least that's what Democrats and Republicans would say if they were under oath or under truth serum, because even jail is worst for them, then admitting to their constituents that they're just a bunch of hyper-partisan, hypocritical, lying assholes.

It's one thing to be against the filibuster, but then the obvious would be why: do you see it as an obstructing Congress to do their jobs, especially the Senate. Or you just hate it when your party is in control of Senate, especially when your party has the House and White House as well. And you're nothing more than a hyper-partisan, hypocritical, lying asshole. You know, those people that Americans continually elect and reelect from both party's to Congress every single freakin year. 

Classic Film & TV Cafe: The Notorious Landlady 1962- 'Scene with Jack Lemmon and Kim Novak'

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, in The Notorious Landlady from 1962.
"Diplomat Jack Lemmon has just returned to England and doesn't know that everyone else suspects Kim Novak's character of murdering her husband!"

From Classic Film & TV Cafe

Source:Alamy Stock Photo- Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon, together in The Notorious Landlady from 1962.
Just on a personal note first: it was the early summer of 2009 June of that year when I was home on a Saturday and there was a an all day Alfred Hitchcock marathon and Vertigo was one of those movies. I heard the name Kim Novak before, but I didn't know who she was. Vertigo is a good movie, but it's really Kim Novak who caught my attention to the point for the rest of that summer at least and into the fall my goal was to see as many Kim Novak movies that I possibly could. I saw Boys Night Out, Strangers When We Meet and perhaps 2-3 other Kim Novak movies that year. Whenever they were available on TV and I had the time to see them. I literally grew a crush on her.

There's something about Kim's voice, eyes, face that all come together at the same time that makes it impossible at least for me to concentrate on anything or anyone else when the camera is on her. She's absolutely adorable and even childlike at times and yet is also drop-dead gorgeous, with incredible sweet, sexy voice. She's like the great talented athlete that has you begging for more every time you see him play, because he's such a great player and then one tragic day it's all over after he breaks his leg in a game and never plays again. And you keep think what if he didn't get hurt, how many more great plays and games, how great would his career had been, had it not been for that one tragic play. Except that Kim Novak was never tragically injured: she left Hollywood voluntarily in the 1960s.

So I think I know how the Jack Lemmon character feels in The Notorious Landlady, with the Kim Novak character knowing how much he likes her and just leaves him begging for more. The Notorious Landlady is not a great movie, which unfortunately can be said about most of Kim Novak's movies, but she and Jack were great together in it. And if they were the only two main characters in it, perhaps it's a great movie, because they had great chemistry in. And Jack Lemmon was always a master comedic actor and comedian. 

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

David Hoffman: '1960s Conservative Describes An America Many See Today'

Source:David Hoffman- Young American women in the 1960s
"Of course the speaker is the 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. I collected these speeches back then because I was developing ideas for my 6 part television series, Making Sense of the Sixties. 

Barry Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in that election. His conservative message did not resonate with the experiences most Americans were having back then. But when I re-examined this recently, much of what he is saying corresponds to what Republicans feel and what President Trump is expressing about America and what needs to change. 

The issues Goldwater raised include the American drift to the left and moral decay, crime, the morals of the young, political corruption, 1960s values, religious freedom, the state of the Supreme Court, and so much more. that resonates with how many Republicans feel and with President Tump's MAGA."

From David Hoffman

I agree with David Hoffman that what Senator Goldwater was talking about during this speech when he was running for President in 1964, resonates with what Donald Trump was saying back in 2016 and today as President. But to compare Barry Goldwater with Donald Trump or any actual Conservative ( like the Never-Trumper's ) with Donald Trump at least in an ideological sense, is not just an insult to Barry Goldwater, but to Conservatives in general. It would be like calling Pat Buchanan a Liberal, ( insult to all Liberals ) or Bernie Sanders a Libertarian, because he's liberal on social issues. ( An insult to all Libertarians )

The closest candidate at least at the presidential level from either the Republican Party or Democratic Party to Senator Barry Goldwater, would be former Representative Ron Paul. Except Goldwater, was a lot more hawkish on foreign policy and national security. But they were both very similar on economic policy, who hated deficits and debt, a big Federal Government, both believed in freedom of choice and personal freedom in general, free speech, etc.

What Donald Trump represents from an ideological and cultural level at the presidential level, is George Wallace. Who ran as an Independent for the Independence Party in 1968, but he was as Independent as its hot in Greenland or cold in Saudi Arabia. He was Neo-Confederate as Governor of Alabama and a Neo-Confederate as a presidential candidate. He was a Nationalist before that term became popular with the right-wing in America.

What George Wallace and Donald Trump represent, are people who woke up one day in the 1960s and suddenly realized it was no longer 1955.

Christian-Right 1960s complaints

"Why are all of these women working?"

"Why are African-Americans on our TV's and in our movies?" And they didn't say African-American back then.

"What do you mean homosexuality is no longer illegal? How come men and women who aren't married, living together?"

"Why are these young people swearing in public and in the movies: did they forget to go to church?"

"Why do all these young people have long hair: did every barbershop around suddenly close? What do you mean my son doesn't want to volunteer for the military and fight for his country?"

At some point in the 1960s, the Christian-Right woke up and realized that America was no longer their Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet utopia and realized that young people didn't want the same American Dream that they wanted and that not every American was originally from Britain or any other part of Europe and even from parts of Europe that Neo-Confederates don't like, Southern Europe being a great example. And decided to step up and fight back. First they backed Barry Goldwater, who wasn't with them on the social issues at least as far as having government outlaw a lot of activities that the Christian-Right disapproves of. And then backed George Wallace in 68, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and now Donald Trump. 

Dan Mitchell: ‘Bernie Sanders Humor’

Source:MEME- Bernie Sanders: “who’s going to pay for all of their free stuff?
Source:The New Democrat

“I’m getting worried that Senator Bernie Sanders is fading in the polls.

That doesn’t make me happy. I want Crazy Bernie to stay relevant.

Why? Because he’s an endless source of clever satire.

Previous editions of Bernie humor can be found here and here.

For today’s edition, let’s start with the fact that Bernie has used political office to become a millionaire, yet he doesn’t put his money where his mouth is (the federal government actually has a website for people who are foolish enough to pay extra tax).”

Read more from Dan Mitchell

Source:Inside Edition: 'Watch Jimmy Fallon's Perfect Impression of Bernie Sanders'- Bernie Sanders, is definitely one of a kind. And if we didn’t have one, he would probably create a new government program to create one. LOL
“Comedy has gone into overdrive after outsiders Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump each had sweeping victories in the New Hampshire primary. Jimmy Fallon unveiled a spot-on impression of Sanders on The Tonight Show on Wednesday night. He had his audience hysterical as he spoofed the Vermont Senator’s speech, joking: “I’m speaking tonight to claim victory in the New Hampshire primary over she who must not be named.” The audience went wild as the real Bernie Sanders made a surprise appearance.”

I truly believe that Bernie Sanders is one of the most if not most honest politicians who has ever lived. Which I know that’s like saying Yao Ming is the tallest man in China, or Toronto is the hottest city in Canada, the salad is the healthiest meal on the McDonald’s menu, or someone is the sanest person at the mental institution, hopefully you get the drift by now. ( If not, seek help ) Obviously there are not a lot of honest politicians. The common stereotype of a politician is that they’ll say whatever they need to say to help themselves at the given time, even if they don’t mean a word of it. But Bernie Sanders, is not just an honest politician he’s an honest man, so for that I just don’t respect the man, but actually like him for his candor and very quick sense of humor.

But here comes a big but: ( No, not that butt ) Bernie, comes off as a traveling salesman, or conman even, like used car salesman who promises people everything and tells them that it will be free and says he has all of this stuff to give you or Elizabeth Warren who has plans for problems that haven’t even been invented yet ( the only psychic to ever run for President ) and doesn’t give you the catch until he’s asked about it. “Senator Sanders, with these record deficits and debt: how are you going to pay for all of these free programs?” With Senator Sanders answer always be something to the affect: “well of course taxes are going to go up. I never said these programs are going to be free.”

Well, actually Bernie did, because the way Socialists tend to think is that if someone doesn’t have to pay for a service in the private market, because they’re getting it from government, that those services are free, because they’re not paying some business for them. What they always leave out is that taxes are actually money and charges that government gives its people for the services that they receive.

If you went to a bar and the bartender said: “every drink is on the house: now, who’s buying?” You would think the bartender is either joking, or perhaps drunk on the stuff that they’re supposed to be selling. That the bartender either had a few too many before they showed up for work, or while they were at work. Imagine a drunk bartender at a bar and he or she asks one of their customers: “what will you have?” With the customer replying: “I’ll have whatever you’re drinking, if there is anything left.” Bernie and his Socialist allies, come off as snake oil or used car salesmen ( or women. For you PC freaks ) as people that are selling things that are too good to be true, because they are too good to be true.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Big Think: Penn Jillette- 'On Libertarianism, Taxes, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Weed'

Source:Big Think- Comedian Penn Jillette, explaining his own libertarianism.
"Take a deep breath, you're in for a ride. Here is Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, taxes, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Gary Johnson, sex, drugs and Kurt Cobain. Jillette's latest book is "Presto!:  How I Made Over 100 Pounds Disappear and Other Magical Tales"

Watch the video at Big Think

Penn Jillette, is a Libertarian, because he doesn't believe he's smart enough to make decisions ( I'm guessing not including his own children ) and that no one else is qualified to make decisions for other people. And that other people aren't qualified to make other decisions for other people. I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty close.

He also said that the way he looks at his own libertarianism, is that he's Right on taxes and Left on sex. Basically saying that he's right-wing ( let's say ) on economic policy and very liberal on personal freedom. 

I as a Liberal ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) I'm also in complete agreement with Penn Jillette and the people that I at least would call mainstream Libertarians ( if there are such people ) when it comes to personal freedom and most economic policy issues.

I don't want government telling people who they can hire and fire. Who they can promote and demote. Give raises or salary cuts. I don't want taxes and regulations on private businesses and organizations should be so high, that it makes it almost impossible for them to stay in business, just because you as some collectivist ( Socialist or otherwise ) believes that you and big government are smart enough to know what's best for everyone else and that people are essentially too stupid to manage their own lives. 

And of course if you're very familiar with this blog you know don't just claim to be pro choice, because we support private choice on abortion and that gays should have the same freedom as straights, and perhaps marijuana, but we're 100% pro choice on everything. Short of someone hurting an innocent person with what they're doing.

If someone wants to smoke marijuana to the point that they're so high that they're see flying elephants flying over skyscrapers in Wichita, Kansas, ( you would have to be higher than a skyscraper to see that ) that's their business. Just don't expect to bail them out when they find themselves in jail, for getting into a bar fight because they thought the bartender grabbed their ass. And don't expect me to except: "the marijuana made me to it excuse" either.

If people want to gamble their life savings away at the casino, that's their business. Just don't expect taxpayers to bail them out when they're not not just broke, but out of a job, because they lost all of their money at the damn casino, when they were supposed to be working. If guys want to screw each other, wear dresses, makeup, speak with higher voices than their mothers and marry men, that's their business. Just don't force me to approve of what they're doing. If women want to bang each other, play professional football, be dykes on bikes, and speak with deeper voices than their fathers, wear crewcuts, that's their business. Just don't expect me to approve of it.

And I could go on to paying for sex, buying, making, and viewing adult films, going to strip joints, owning strip joints, running strip joints, and being paying customer at a strip joint, just as long as I  and no other taxpayer is forced to subsidize these personal choices, or bail people out when they make bad decisions. I don't drink alcohol, smoke anything, or use any other narcotic, but like Penn Jillette I don't believe I'm qualified to make those decisions for others. And I sure as hell know that government isn't qualified to make those decision for others as well.

To paraphrase Michael Douglas from The American President, well to paraphrase President Andrew Shepard: ( Michael Douglas's character in TAP ) America is a tough place and you have to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. And he was talking about free speech someone I''m also bit of a radical on, but you could apply that speech to personal freedom in general, because even though all of us are free to make our own decisions, so is everyone else that is around us. So you might personally approve of the way you're living, people around you might and vice-versa. But again, who is more qualified to make these decisions for us: the individual who knows themself the best, or government? How you answer that question is where you fall when it comes to your beliefs in individual freedom. 

Biographics: Hunter S. Thompson- 'Gonzo Extraordinaire'

Source:Biographics- Hunter S. Thompson: The Extraordinaire.
I guess I look at Hunter Thompson not as a political satirist or a comedian, or perhaps even a journalist, but as a satirist on American life who was so interested in America that he wanted to find out as much as he could and then make fun of it. I believe Hunter loved life, perhaps especially American life, but wanted to have a good time and has as much fun in life as possible and used humor in his writing and other outlets to express that.

You can watch the video here Biographics

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Where he goes through Las Vegas looking for the American dream. I believe he's someone who was consumed with information and finding out as much as possible about people and things that he was interested in.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail is where you see the political satiric side of Hunter Thompson. I mean how you not cover the George McGovern 1972 presidential campaign without a sense of humor, especially if you were a McGovernite who actually managed to stay sober during that entire campaign.

So perhaps just yourself, Hunter Thompson, and Senate McGovern himself who actually believed everything that he said during that campaign as the only sober people who had anything to do with that campaign. With the rest of the campaign being made up of people who were flown in from Hippie communes in California who really did believe that every single problem known to man and perhaps problems that hadn't even been invented yet, could be solved if you just put government in charge of it.

I love America and love practically everything about America ( except for the ignorant fringes in America and the crazy people ) but when you have the political system that we do with voters who complain about corruption in politics and corrupt politicians, while at the same time you they vote for and reelect those same politicians, like people who claim to hate fast food, even though that's all they eat, you have to be able live life in America with a sense of humor and be able to laugh about it. Otherwise you might as well just become an alcoholic or check yourself into a mental institution, because you'll go crazy. America was the perfect country for Hunter Thompson and it's a great thing that we had him. 

Monday, August 26, 2019

The Film Archives: Politics & Prose- Daniel Oppenheimer: 'Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century'

Source:Google- Author Daniel Oppenheimer, at Politics and Prose in Washington: talking about his book "Exit Right" in 2016.
"A provocative, intimate look at the evolution of America's political soul through the lives of six political figures from Whittaker Chambers to Christopher Hitchens who abandoned the left and joined the right. In Exit Right Daniel Oppenheimer tells the stories of six major political figures whose journeys away from the left reshaped the contours of American politics in the twentieth century. By going deep into the minds of six apostates, Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens, Oppenheimer offers an unusually intimate history of the American left, and the right's reaction.

Daniel Oppenheimer is a writer and filmmaker whose articles and videos have been featured in the New York Times, the Atlantic, Tablet Magazine, and salon.com. He has an MFA in nonfiction writing from Columbia University and is a director of strategic communications at the University of Texas at Austin."

From Odyssey Books

Source:Odyssey Books- Daniel Oppenheimer: author of Exit Right 
Author Daniel Oppenheimer, at Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington in 2016, talking about book 'Exit Right: "The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century. 

From The Film Archives

What these political figures that Daniel Oppenheimer talks about in his book Exit Right, including people like Ronald Reagan, would argue is that they didn't leave the Left or the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left them.

Pre-late 1960s or so even the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party including people like Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, ( if you want to call JFK a Progressive, instead of a Liberal ) were anti-Communists and even anti-Socialists. Wanted nothing to do with socialism and communism as ideologies and movements. But believed in things like the right to organize, right to assemble, right to privacy, free speech, a public safety net for people who really needed it, President Lyndon Johnson with the civil rights laws that President John F. Kennedy fully backed before he was assassinated in November of 1963.

Back up until the late 1960s or so being everyone was against Communists and Socialists . Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were completely against communism and at least most aspects of socialism. Including the Progressives and Progressive Democrats who did believe in those key progressive social and economic values that I mentioned before, but didn't want government in charge of everything and didn't want property rights to disappear and put government completely in charge. Including Ronald Reagan who in the 1940s was still an actor and ran the Actors Guild in Hollywood. Including Progressives and even Progressive Democrats.

If you want to know why Progressives and Liberals get stereotyped as Socialists and even Communists, Hippies who seem to hate America and what America is supposed to stand for, and even hate American capitalism, and look at everyone who is supposed to be part of the establishment as a pig and bigot, look at the late 1960s with the rise of the Baby Boomers in America and the New-Left ( of Socialists and Communists ) that they got behind. That's also where you'll see a lot of Progressive Democrats back then leave the Democratic Party and either become Right-Progressive Republicans and be part of the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, or become Conservative Republicans like Ronald Reagan.

The 1960s, especially with the Vietnam War and the rise of the New-Left in the Democratic Party with all of these hippie-radicals becoming so politically active in American politics, is where tyou see the Dixiecrats ( Neo-Confederate Democrats ) becoming Republicans. As well as Center-Right Progressive Democrats like Ronald Reagan and others also leaving the Democratic Party and becoming Republicans. In Reagan's case, a Center-Right Conservative Republican. Which is how America goes from being an almost one-party democratic country with the Democrats almost completely in charge, to a strong two-party system where the Republican Party becomes very competitive nationally again. 

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.

"In his new book, The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, the U.C. Irvine cognitive scientist Dr. Donald Hoffman challenges the leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality. How can it be possible that the world we see is not objective reality? And how can our senses be useful if they are not communicating the truth? Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally. His evolutionary model contends that natural selection has favored perception that hides the truth and guides us toward useful action, shaping our senses to keep us alive and reproducing. We observe a speeding car and do not walk in front of it; we see mold growing on bread and do not eat it. These impressions, though, are not objective reality. Just like a file icon on a desktop screen is a useful symbol rather than a genuine representation of what a computer file looks like, the objects we see every day are merely icons, allowing us to navigate the world safely and with ease. The real-world implications for this discovery are huge, even dismantling the very notion that spacetime is objective reality. The Case Against Reality dares us to question everything we thought we knew about the world we see.

In this conversation, Hoffman and Shermer get deep into the weeds of:

• the nature of reality (ontology)
• how we know anything about reality (epistemology)
• the possibility that we’re living in a simulation
• the possibility that we’re just a brain in a vat
• the problem of other minds (that I’m the only sentient conscious being while everyone else is a zombie)
• the hard problem of consciousness
• what it means to ask “what’s it like to be a bat?”
• does the moon exist if there are no conscious sentient beings anywhere in the universe?
• is spacetime doomed?
• quantum physics and consciousness
• the microtubule theory of consciousness
• the global workspace theory of consciousness, and
• how Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception differs from Jordan Peterson’s Archetypal Theory of Truth (Shermer’s label for Peterson’s evolutionary theory of truth).

This dialogue was recorded on April 8, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California." 

From Skeptic Magazine

I'm not a scientist ( obviously. What was your first clue? ) so I'm not qualified to get into one's brain as far as why they do certain things, especially when they're obviously wrong and go against their own personal interest, as well as the interests of the people around them. But I'm an observer of people and as a man myself I am qualified to speak for myself as far as why people do certain things,  including things that go against their own personal interests and why people even feel the need to try to escape reality and reason when making certain decisions. 

I'm not an Atheist and I'm not a Randian ( term named after author Ayn Rand ) but as an Agnostic and I believe even as a Liberal I believe in reason and reality and don't believe in the faith for the most part. Perhaps the least romantic person you've ever met ( assuming you've never met Ayn Rand ) and I believe that you always should go with reason and reality, over how you want things and people to be. I also don't drink alcohol and or use any other narcotics, so I'm always forced to live in reality and see things they way they are, at least to my best ability, because I'm don't have that escape to take me away from the way things really are, for good and bad. I'm not going to have  a bad day and then hit a bar to get wasted to try to get that day or whatever happened that day out of my mind.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything and I'm the best at anything including personal decision-making. I'm just saying reality and reason are my approach to how I choose to look at the world and then try to make the best decisions that I can based on what I'm personally seeing and hearing in life. Based not on how I want people, things, or places to be, but how they are based on the best available facts and evidence.

But for too many Americans reality is not good enough for them to the point that they just don't try to change it for them, but start seeing and hearing things that simply aren't there to make themselves feel better. The example I gave about not going to the bar when I'm having a bad time to get wasted and escape from my negative reality, that's not what a lot of Americans do and perhaps is a reason for alcoholism that people need to get wasted and feel better when they're going through tough times and see alcohol as their personal escape, regardless of the negative consequences that come from abusing alcohol.

For intelligent, sober, responsible, sane people, reality is all we need to do well in life: "these are the facts on the ground ( for good and bad ) and this is what can be done about it. And this is how we can make the best of it." Is how these people look at the world to make the world the best that they can make it for themselves.

The alcoholic, the celebrity culture crazed person who might not even be popular or even well-known in their own neighborhood, let alone the rest of the country, for them reality is not good enough. So they see things that simply aren't there, think more of themselves than they deserve too, and perhaps especially the alcoholic make a lot of bad decisions that come with really bad consequences for them and people around them. Because the real-world is not good enough for them and have mentally escaped reality. 

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

TED: Joseph G. Levitt- 'How Craving Attention Makes You Less Creative'

Source:TED- Actor Joseph G. Levitt, speaking at a TED conference
"Joseph Gordon-Levitt has gotten more than his fair share of attention from his acting career. But as social media exploded over the past decade, he got addicted like the rest of us -- trying to gain followers and likes only to be left feeling inadequate and less creative. In a refreshingly honest talk, he explores how the attention-driven model of big tech companies impacts our creativity -- and shares a more powerful feeling than getting attention: paying attention."

Joseph G. Levitt speaking at a TED

Source:Autumn Asphodel: 'Dealing with Attention Seeking Behavior'-  Great material for anyone who needs to sleep. but who simply can't. 
"Everyone needs attention. When they don't get the attention they deserve, such as being neglected, abandoned, abused, or left feeling unworthy or unloved, they will subconsciously make up for that by seeking attention and sympathy to fill that void. Attention seeking can also be a subconscious cry for help. But, there are ways of recognizing the behavior and getting control of it."

What actor Jospeh Gordon Levitt is talking about here sounds like a book that British author Caitlin Moran wrote about people who try to be famous just to be famous. Who do and say outrageous things just to be famous. The literal title of her book is: "How to be Famous." Not saying that Joe Levitt read Caitlin Moran's book and decided to give a speech about this, but they're basically talking about the same thing: people who are addicted to fame, especially people who aren't already famous. Which s an issue that we've always had in this country ever since the creation of Hollywood, but has exploded in the last 10-20 years thanks to the internet. As well as the rise in popularity of tabloid news shows .and what's called reality TV. 

I wrote a piece for this blog about Caitlin Moran's book which you can see in the BookTV section of this blog. And the argument that I made 14 months ago, is the same argument that I'm going to make here: people need to know who they are and what they're good at. And if they're lucky or just very skillful and intelligent, perhaps they're not addicted to their phone or coffee or what's called reality TV and celebrity culture, they'll find something that they both love doing and are really good at, because they have the talent for it and they love what they do for a living. Whether it's writing, acting, teaching, law enforcement, whatever it might be that they're good at in life, that supports their lifestyles, and they love doing.

My next point is about positive creativity versus negative creativity

There are cooks who are very creative in how they prepare their meals that a lot of people love. There are doctors who are very creative in how they deliver quality, affordable, health care. There are great teachers who are very creative in how they teach their students. And I could go on indefinitely to the point that insomniacs might finally get their first sleep in weeks, months or years.

And then there are serial murders who are very creative in how they murder their victims: Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and unfortunately I could go on there as well. And then we have reality TV and celebrity addicts, who aren't as dangerous ( even with their smartphones and computers ) but in too many cases aren't as smart either, whose only goal in life is to be famous and become the next OMG awesome celebrity or whatever.

People who want to be the next Paris Hilton ( or whoever the most popular Real Housewives star is ) who are famous for simply being famous and doing and saying outrageous things. And the more outrageous they are and the more trouble that they get in, the more popular they are, the more followers they have on Twitter and Instagram, or whatever their social media network of choice happens to be. How many times have Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan been arrested and then also look at how popular they are.

My next to last point goes back to one of my first points and hopefully you don't get any whiplash here: if your sole purpose in life is to be famous and popular, you're going to end up doing and saying a lot of stupid things in life. And that new celebrity might say: "I might be doing 10 years in prison, but I could get out in 5. And besides, look at all of the new followers that I'll have when I get out. And I''lll even get a new book deal out of it." Which would be another example of negative creativity, which would be people who don't care about getting in trouble, just as long as it comes from fame and they can make a lot of money off of it.

Or your goal in life could be just to be very successful, even to the point you never spend a single day in jail. Which might sound way too hard to believe for too many people and you decide that you're going to be the best that you can be at whatever you do ( just as long as it's legal, or then jail time will definitely be involved ) and then let the fame and money take care of it themselves, based on how talented, intelligent, and successful you are. Which would be my approach.