Derik Schneider Online

Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: YouTube

Saturday, 31 October 2015

The Gypsy: Woody Allen- Rare Standup From 1965

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

If I was robbed four times in a month as Woody Allen claimed, not that I was robbed, but that he was, hum? Gee I don’t know, how about moving! Just throwing a thought out there. Actually, after the second time I was robbed, I think I would have moved. Especially if I was in his situation, or was doing better. Nuevo York, a muy loco ciudad! New York, a very crazy city, for any English speakers who happen to see this. They go from way too much crime and a city of eight-million people in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, that can’t defend itself, even though it’s the economic center of the world, (where all those high tax dollars go) to a city in the 1990s where you could be arrested for even viewing porn. Perhaps even jaywalking, hailing for a cab with your middle finger.

If a city is too dangerous to go outside, it’s too dangerous to live there. I know, another strike of commonsense there. I guess people could work from home and order all of their food in. Have the dentist and barber come over, etc. But if that is what people are doing, then the people making all the deliveries are risking their lives by going outside everyday and going to other people’s homes in New York. And don’t forget, even if they get out of their homes and business’s safely, they might risk being kidnapped, or robbed at the place where they’re making their delivery. I’ve never understood how big wealthy cities haven’t been able to defend themselves. And gee I don’t know, invest a good deal of their resources into their law enforcement so the city can defend itself. But I guess that just comes from not being a New Yorker.
The Gypsy: Woody Allen- Rare Standup From 1965



Thursday, 29 October 2015

Salon: Interview: Steve Almond & Diane Roberts: "I'm a Feminist With a Football Obsession": Still Hope For The New-Left

Tallahassee's Doak Campbell Stadium
Salon: Interview: Steve Almond & Diane Roberts: "I'm a Feminist With a Football Obsession": Still Hope For The New-Left

I think its clear why so-called feminists and the broader New-Left in America hate American football. It masculine, its tough, it’s a sport for men, designed for TV, like in the real-world there are winners and losers. They probably even see the sport as sexist, because its such a manly straight-man’s game. (If you will) And yet there’s a quality about American football that the New-Left and Socialists tend to be fans of. Football is about as collectivist of a sport as you can imagine. Maybe only soccer is more collectivist, because football is all about teamwork.

To run the ball, the center has to correctly snap the ball to the quarterback. The quarterback has to correctly take the ball from center and then correctly hand the ball off to the tailback, or fullback and perhaps fake the handoff to the fullback and give it to the tailback. The runner, has to take the ball and hit the correct hole and run hard. The offensive line, has to create the hole for the runner. All of these things are basic fundamental procedures. But if you watch American football on a regular basis, these basic steps are screwed up on a regular basis. The QB is not ready for the snap, the center snaps it too soon, or doesn’t snap it at all, because he thinks the snap count is higher. The QB hands off the ball to a runner who is not there. The runner drops the handoff. An offensive lineman, false starts, etc.

Football, is not boxing. You can’t play well if you’re teammates around do also don’t their jobs. Every player in the came is dependent on everyone else to do their job. You can have the greatest QB and receivers in the league. But if your offensive line can’t pass protect, your receivers will never see the ball. At least downfield, because your QB will usually be on the ground before he can get rid of the ball. And that is just the offense, which I’m probably more familiar with as a fan. But good luck to your linebackers making tackles for loss and at the line of scrimmage, if your defensive line is consistently getting blocked downfield, with you left to clean up the mess. You want a pass rush from your DL, your corners and safeties need to cover the receivers for more than a couple of seconds so your DL can get up the field and hit the quarterback.

You want could pass coverage on defense, you need a consistent pass rush so your secondary is not left to cover good speedy receivers 5-6 seconds per pass play. They need to get to the quarterback in 2-3. Don’t have to sack him every play, but get the QB to throw the ball quicker than he wants to. Hit him as he’s throwing the ball, or right after it. Make him try to scramble. And for a pass rusher to be effective like a defensive end, defensive tackle rush linebacker, they need the pass rushers on the other side to do their jobs as well. So they’re not always doubled and triple-teamed. You’re not going to find a more collectivist and perhaps even socialist sport than American football. I bet Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is a football fan. The question is, does he follow the New York Giants, or New England Patriots, because he’s lived in both places. But you would have to ask Senator Sanders that.

American football, is violent, its rugged, its gritty, comes with a lot of risks and people do get hurt from it and comes with a lot of costs. But it’s about as American of an activity as we have. And a reason why Americans love America and being American. But there’s a big reason the Super Bowl is always the highest rated sporting event in the world every year. Because millions of people outside of America watch the game and even come here to see it. People from collectivist social democracies, who tend to claim that they don’t like a lot of what America stands for. And don’t like a lot of the qualities and characteristics about American football. And yet they come to our country, emigrate to our country watch our sports, including football. Because its such an exciting game where you can’t be successful at it without collectivism and teamwork.


Saturday, 24 October 2015

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

Dave Rubin & Sam Harris
The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem are leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.


Friday, 23 October 2015

Franken Splean: BBC's Omnibus: Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, From 1978

Source: Franken Splean-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

If I was growing up, or an adult in the 1960s and 1970s, I might consider if I had access to, going through that decade on one big alcohol and illegal narcotics high. The problem with that is I probably wouldn't have survived it and lived to blog about those experiences today. Which might have only been a problem for myself. But the 1970s especially, was a very depressing decade. As I mentioned last week about 1979, without Hollywood, America would have been a country of Fins. A very depressed country all in search of a tall bridge to jump off hoping we wouldn't hit water as we jumped off. The problem with that is that there would have been lines of millions of Americans, not waiting for gas, but to all jump off the same bridge. Even escaping reality has its limits to it like taking the trip to escape reality and what it does to your body.

I think making a film, or book, (how about both and devote your whole life to the project) about George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, (speaking of marijuana highs) would have been entertaining and depressing enough. We didn't need Dennis Kucinich, a former U.S. Representative and two-time presidential candidate who lost his House seat to another Democrat, because we had George McGovern. Whose 1972 presidential campaign made it appear that he wasn't running for President of the United States. But Planet Utopia, where there's no poverty, no discrimination, no hate and no anything else that good people tend to see as bad. And what also made Senator McGovern's campaign strange, was that I don't think the man even drank. Let alone smoked marijuana, or any other illegal narcotics. He was just out there, I mean out there as a sober man. Here's a guy who lost a presidential election to a criminal. You can't even beat a criminal in a presidential election, you're pretty pathetic.

I think covering Jimmy Carter would have been interesting enough. Here's a guy who was also a politician and yet he also seemed like a human being as well. Who didn't try to convince people he was perfect, or cover up obvious mistakes and took actual responsibility for himself and people who worked for him. Speaking of Planet Utopia, imagine a country where politicians actually seemed like real people and not robots, or puppets. Where you have someone standing behind the politician telling them what to say when a reporter has the balls to ask the politician a real question that puts the politician on the spot. I'm not here blaming politicians, because they get elected and reelected and reelected and reelected, until they die, or people sober up and decide to vote them out, by voters who are us and everyday people.  But Jimmy Carter, actually seemed like a real American, just a hell of a lot smarter.

Sometimes I wish I was born 20-25 years later and not born during the middle of one of the recession's from the 1970s. Because then I would have gotten to grow up, or have been part of the civil rights movement and perhaps even the hippie movement. I think it would have been great to live during 1968, just to see if I could have survived that year. But then someone slaps me in the face and I wake up and think to myself, "what are you fucking crazy!" Coming up during that time period would have been hell I think. Sure! It would have been fun, especially if I didn't get drafted to Vietnam and didn't have a way to get to Canada. But a lot of that time period would have been so depressing for me. I mean, I got through 1979, 2001, 2009-10. I think that is enough trauma for one person who hasn't turned 40 yet. (Knock on wood) But its a great time to write and blog about.
Franken Splean: Hunter S. Thompson Omnibus 1978



Wednesday, 21 October 2015

Real Time With Bill Maher: Interview With Senator Bernie Sanders

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Every time I hear someone interview Senator Bernie Sanders and someone asks him what does he mean by socialist and socialism, I end up feeling like I’m one of his campaign spokesman. Because he never fully answers that question and I end up explaining what he means by socialist and socialism just based on positions he takes in his campaign and his speeches. Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders. Marxists, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao, Joe Stalin and people like that. A Democratic Socialist, just wants to tax most of your money away from you and use government to take care of you. A Marxist, won’t ever let you see your own money. Because in a Marxist state you don’t own anything and you’ll probably be poor anyway, unless you have a sweet gig with the central government. And then they might use some of the state revenue to see to it that you don’t have to starve, or something.

Any politician who tells you that they have free government programs for you, ask them if they know of any great ski resorts in San Diego and hows the snow there. You might want to ask them if they also have a great deal on a 1978 Ford Pinto, or do they have any New Hampshire palm trees that they want to sell. All these new government programs that Bernie is talking about all come with a cost. What’s the clue there? They’re government programs! Anyone who pays taxes in America knows that government is not free. And you could raise taxes on the wealthy by fifty-percent if you want to. (Some people are screaming why not!) And watch people in Canada and Mexico get rich because of all the new money that is now being invested in those counties in order to avoid 60-70% tax rates in capitalist America.

So of course the middle class are going to have to pay for their free college, free childcare, free health insurance, free health care, free food, free housing, whatever else the Senator wants to give away for free. Because those things won’t be free for anyone whose receiving them. He’ll have to increase payroll taxes and income taxes on perhaps everybody to pay for them. Even when government pays for services through borrowing and asking for a check from the King of Saudi Arabia, or the Prime Minister of Japan, taxpayers have to pay for that as well. In the form of interest on the national debt and higher interest rates. You want government services, you have to pay for them unless you’re too poor to pay taxes. Which most of the country isn’t . If Senator Sanders is going to become President Sanders, he’s going to have to convince millions of Americans, especially Americans who aren’t Democratic Socialists that they should want to pay for these new services.

The weakness of the Sanders Campaign, is that they’re promising a lot of Christmas gifts (even in October) without telling people who they will be charged for their own gifts. Imagine receiving a Christmas gift from your brother and he tells you, “Joe, I’m glad you enjoy your new book, but that’s going to be twenty bucks. I don’t have the money to pay for it myself.” I would probably hit my brother with the book, or throw the book at him. (Pun intended) So what Bernie should be doing is, “saying look at these other countries and the services that they provide for their people. And how they pay for them. That is what I want to do here.” While also explaining to people that those services are paid for through payroll taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. I don’t agree with that approach, but at least he would be straight with the hundreds of millions of American taxpayers that he wants to represent as their president.
Real Time With Bill Maher: Bernie Sets The Record Straight on Socialism



Saturday, 17 October 2015

Retro Viewing: BBC's I Love 1979: A Funny Way to End a Funny Decade

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

What do I remember about 1979? Not much. First year of nursery school and unfortunately I do remember that. I still have a class photo from June, 1979 that proves I was there. Living in Bethesda, Maryland, a very cold winter and a very hot summer. Consequence of living right between Florida and Maine you get the extremes when it comes to weather. And if you remember 1979 you know that the economy sucked like 1976 0-14 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and that cost of energy and cost of living in general was very high in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I do remember Jimmy Carter as President, I remember meeting my paternal grandparents for the very first time. Which was 1978, or 79.

I do remember the designer denim jeans revolution that started in the late 1970s. (Thank God for miracles!) Which actually started in 1977-78, but I guess became real big in 1979. And seeing all of these beautiful sexy women with great legs and butts walking around in those jeans. And generally wearing them with boots and a leather, or suede jacket. Which made watching sitcoms in the early and mid 1980s and in 79, a lot of fun for guys, including myself. Because those designer jeans for women were all over the 1980s on TV. Today those jeans would probably be called skinny jeans, but didn’t have the same low-rise and were a bit higher. Seeing Catherine Bach on Dukes of Hazzard in those jeans and cowgirl boots, was all the motivation I needed to watch that show and see those legs.

The Dukes of Hazzard, comes out in 1979. And I mean it had every single country rural Anglo-Saxon stereotype about that culture that you could possibly find in real-life all on one show. Dirt roads, men and women with not one, but two first names. I guess they were selfish when God was giving out first names, or their parents couldn’t make of their mind what to call them. So they called them Billy Joe, or Betty Sue, because they couldn’t decide on Billy, or Joe, or Betty, or Sue. So their parents named them Billy Joe and Betty Sue and gave them both names. The Dukes, was actually a very good show. But some of the writing even though a lot of it was very funny, made you feel like you were always at a Southern Baptist Convention, or went back in time to 1955. You didn’t even hear the words hell, or damn. Like, “what the hell?” Or, “I don’t give a damn!” Or just, damn! It was always, “what the heck?” Or, “dang it!? The show had a real Leave it to Beaver vibe to it that was pretty cheesy.

I would talk about the politics and current affairs of 1979, but the problem with that is I don’t want be accused of sending anyone into a depression and being committed to a mental institution. A very depressing year economically especially, but crazy weather, high crime, big problems oversees. Wait, I guess it is too late for that now, but if I went further it would just get worst. Thank God for Hollywood and the American entertainment industry in general, because without them I think would have been a country of Fins. And you would see long lines of people not waiting for gas, but to get to the nearest bridge to jump off from. All of those great movies, like The Electric Horseman and The China Syndrome, two great Jane Fonda movies, WKRP, becoming a hit in 1978-79, The Dukes of Hazzard, Threes Company, (speaking of designer jeans revolution) there was were plenty of great innocent distractions for people to forget about (if that was humanly possible) how bad the State of the Union was in 1979 was. So in that sense it was a great year.


Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Video Detective: The Seduction Of Joe Tynan 1979- About a Politician Who Wants it All and Almost Loses Everything

Meryl Streep & Alan Alda-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The Seduction of Joe Tynan is one of the best political movies I’ve ever seen and it reminds me a little bit of the Ted Kennedy-Jimmy Carter 1979-80 Democratic race for president, which I’ll get into later. Alan Alda plays Senator Joe Tynan from New York, who has solid Progressive Democratic credentials. Who is in love with his job and wants to move up and be a national player in the party if not President of the United States.

What separates him from Senator Ted Kennedy is that Senator Tynan, actually wants to be President. Ted Kennedy ran for president in the 1980, because he didn’t like where the country was going with the bad economy and everything else, didn’t think President Carter was progressive enough, but more importantly he felt some obligation to the progressive wing to run for president and put another Kennedy in the White House.

Joe Tynan, loves the president, loves campaigning, loves politics. I would say loves his kids back in New York as well, just not enough to make them a major priority as far as attending their major events. And I would say likes his wife a lot and perhaps loves her and is attracted to her, but doesn’t have much respect for her and sees her as bit of lightweight, at least as far as the people he deals with in Washington. And I believe this comes out pretty clearly in the movie as far as how Tynan talks about his wife whose played by the adorable and funny Barbara Harris.

What makes Tynan a strong potential presidential candidate is that the President a Democrat, has a U.S. Supreme Court nominee up. Who is a bit of a right-winger, at least on civil rights issues and supported forced segregation in the past, who comes from Arkansas. And that puts Senator Tynan in a tough position of having to consider taking on the leader of his party.

Joe Tynan, doesn’t want to take on the President and his Democratic Leadership in the Senate, but he’s not going to support right-wing Supreme Court nominee who supports forced segregation either. Especially since he’s looking at running for president himself. And is approached by civil rights and labor lawyers in the party who want him to vote against Supreme Court nominee. And is approached by Karen Traynor. (played by Meryl Streep)

Who is one of the Democratic activists trying to bring Tynan to their side and oppose Edward Anderson (played by Maurice Copeland) who is the Supreme Court nominee. She gets Tynan real evidence that he’s against civil rights with video of a speech that he gave in the 1960s and that’s how Senator Tynan comes out against Anderson. Which pisses off his close friend Senator Birney (played by Melvyn Douglas) who is a close friend of Anderson and a big supporter of him.

What you have in Joe Tynan is a workaholic who has become a career politician whose always focused on politics and always looking for the next big move in his career and when he’s not doing that and takes any free time, he does it with people other than his wife and family. Starts an affair with Karen Traynor, becomes a national player and hero in the Democratic Party, decides to run for president without even talking to his wife and kids.

Who starts off the movie having basically everything he wants and has everything going for him as a young influential U.S. Senator who can move legislation. But sees an opening to furthering his political career and jumps on that and in the process almost loses everything that he has. I think this is a very good movie about an ambitious workaholic career politician who is never completely happy and satisfied. And is always looking for more, even if it means losing everything that he already has.


Saturday, 10 October 2015

AlterNet: Opinion-Adam Johnson- "Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher Still Baffled Why So Many Far-Leftists Think They're Bigots": What The Far-Left Doesn't Get About Liberalism


Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

You couldn’t count how many times you’ll see and rightfully so how many times the AlterNet and Salon in particular, will how some piece about the Christian-Right and how radical they are and show this bigotry, or that bigotry from them. They both everyday have some negative piece about the Christian-Right and this blog posts a lot negative pieces about the Christian-Right as well. That is not why Richard Dawkins (can I call him Dick) and Bill Maher are annoyed, or surprised by the New-Left in America. People that author/blogger Sam Harris calls regressive leftists. It’s when something radical and horrible is done by non-Christians in America especially right-wing Muslims who believe women should be treated like second-class citizens that the New-Left will either ignore, or defend that gets to Dawkins and Maher.

Atheism and liberalism and they’re not the same thing, is not about going after Christianity and only defending speech that critiques the Christian-Right and the broader right-wing in America. Liberalism is not about defending speech against Christians while trying to censor speech against Muslims. It’s about defending speech regardless of who it comes from and what the speaker says. Short of libeling people and inciting violence. Which is why the New-Left aren’t Liberals, but what I at least call New Marxists, because they don’t understand that. And have this real fascist element that says they’re going to defend their right to free speech to the hill, as they try to shut down speech and speakers they disagree with. The Real Liberals in this debate are the defenders of free speech regardless of who is speaking. Which are Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, because they’re defending free speech.

I’ve made this point several times before, but you can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. And you’re not much of an Atheist if you only concentrate on one religion and in this case that religion being Christianity and the Southern Anglo-Saxon right-wing form of it. If you have a problem with Christian Conservatives who say that women’s place is in the home and that gays should be in a mental institution, or someplace, great! I’m with you, but how about Muslim countries that don’t allow women to even drive, or vote, show their faces in public even. Do you not have a problem with that and just view as part of their culture? Is so like Richard Dawkins said, the hell with their culture! Because that is not a culture that is worth defending. Not talking about ignoring the problems with the radical Christian-Right. Just saying that they aren’t the only source of radical religion in the world.
Secular Talk: Real Time With Bill Maher- Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins Discuss The Regressive Left



Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Real Time with Bill Maher: Richard Dawkins- Regressive Leftists: Leftists Who Don't Understand Liberalism


Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I believe Sam Harris’s term regressive leftists is perfect. I mean if you call yourself a Liberal, but you don’t believe in free speech, just speech that you agree with that some collective has decided is appropriate speech, in other words collective speech, you’re not progressive and not a Liberal. But you’re regressive and perhaps collectivist, or statist would be a more appropriate political label for you. Being a Liberal whose against free speech would be like being a Conservative whose against free enterprise. Well, if you’re against free enterprise, you would be a Marxist, which is a hell of a lot different from being a Conservative. Or being a Catholic who doesn’t believe in God. A quarterback who doesn’t believe in the passing game. Well then what the hell are you doing as a quarterback?

The New-Left in America, which is what we are really talking about here when it comes to regressive leftists, has this far out on Mars one month-long of nothing but marijuana type of trip that Muslims and other minorities aren’t subjected to criticism in America. Even though they live in America where we have a Constitution with the first amendment to it being our First Amendment (surprise, surprise) that guarantees our Freedom of Speech. That can’t be taken away from us, because some political correctness tight ass who apparently has nothing better to do with their time than to protect all minorities from criticism, disagrees with what’s being said. If you don’t believe in free speech whether it’s about Muslims, Christians, or anyone else, America might not be the country for you.
Real Time With Bill Maher: Richard Dawkins- Regressive Leftists



Monday, 5 October 2015

LA Progressive: Opinion: W.J. Rorabaugh: Hippies Culture War: How Liberals Won The Culture War

Progressive: Opinion: WJ Rorabaugh: Hippies Culture War: How Liberals Won The Culture War

The one thing That I like about the 1960s culturally other than the music, the movies and Jim Morrison, were the Hippies. And as much as todays so-called Progressives claim to love the Hippies and respect them, the Hippies represent the opposite of what today’s so-called Progressive represent. Hippies, Liberals were true, because they were anti-establishment and pro-individualism. Today’s so-called Progressives, are anti-individualism and pro-big government to the point that they want government to check what people eat, drink and even what we can say to each other with their so-called political correctness movement. Today’s so-called Progressives are not anti-establishment. To the contrary, they support the biggest establishment in the world. Its called the U.S. Government and think it’s too small.

Hippies back in the mid 1960s lets say at least were true Liberals. Because they were individualists. They got the memo, or bothered to look at the calendar and figured out that it was no longer 1959 and that the 1950s was finally over. They were born either post-World War II, or during that war and did not remember any of it and decided that they did not have to live their lives of their parents and grandparents. That the 1940s and 1950s was not so swell after all. That mom did not have to stay home and raise the kids, while dad came home every night Between 6-7 and said, “honey, I’m home! What’s for dinner? I’m starved. Gee, what a day. ” Or something like that from Leave it to Beaver. That God That was before my time. Hippies / Liberals, were tired of black and white TV, or sitting around in the living room listening to the radio and were looking for a different lifestyle.

There’s a discussion among historians about when the Counter Culture actually began. Some people say 1965 With the start of the anti-war movement. I point to the 1963 March on Washington as not just one of the most important times and best times in American history, but where you literally had a million people from all over the country from all sorts of races, ethnicities, cultures, lifestyles, who were anti-establishment and were all looking for a better and different America. If there was one point in history that I wish I was old enough to have been there and experienced it would be the 1963 March on Washington. The dawning of a new America where you had all sorts of different Americans all together at the same place having a good time together and enjoying each other with all sorts of great entertainment groups all together.

These Americans were looking for their own place in America and the freedom to be individuals. And not feel they need to work at their father’s factory, or his company, or get married and stay home and raise kids, if you were a women back then while your husband went to work and earned a living for his wife and kids. Gays came out of the closet in the thousands in the 1960s. And according to the Christian-Right, America has-been going to hell ever since. As they’ve forgotten one of their own commandments. “Love your neighbor as yourself own.” In other words, treat others as you would treat yourself. Show respect to the other people as you want to be respected. These values ​​are mainstream today, but fifty years ago America was going through, well a Cultural Revolution.

Romantic couples having pre-marital sex, living together before they were married. Perhaps better known as domestic partnerships, unmarried couples raising their kids together, homosexuality, marijuana, women working and managing business’s, men who cooked and spent a lot of time with their kids, marijuana, I mean all of these things are mainstream today. (More examples of why the Christian-Right believes America is going to hell) But They Were started back in 1963 and then a mid-1960s by the people who were literally trying to change America if not the world. Not the New-Left from the late 1960s that literally wanted a different form of government for the United States and a completely different economic system and force democratic socialism if not communism on the country. The Hippies, wanted to create a new culture in America and new way of life.

The reason why the Hippies and Liberals won the Culture War has nothing to do with new arguments, or these different ways of debating issues. It has to do with the children and grandchildren of the Hippies are now grown up and experienced their parents and grandparents attitudes when it comes to things like tolerance and multiculturalism and integration and have decided that there’s nothing wrong with people living differently as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they’re doing. They know and are friends of people from other races, ethnicities, cultures, religions and even sexualities and know that they’re good people to. So why put them down, or look down upon them simply for being different from how they Are and how they were born. It took 1-2 generations of people for Liberals to win the Culture War, but we did and America is not going back to the 1950s.



Saturday, 3 October 2015

Alison Martino: James Dean Mysteries & Scandals: A Rebel With a Cause?

Rebel Without a Cause
The Daily Review: Alison Martino: James Dean Mysteries & Scandals: A Rebel With a Cause?

I guess I sort of see James Dean as the male version of Jayne Mansfield. (No, I'm not trying to be insulting) As a very talented entertainer, but someone who lacked personal discipline and self-confidence. I believe another good comparison to Jim Dean would be Jim Morrison. Again, talented entertainer who got as most out of their young lives as they could until they died. The Lizard King, was an alcoholic and probably addicted to illegal drugs as well and Dean was more of an adrenaline junky I guess who was always moving fast and couldn't slow down. A Rebel Without a Cause, a famous movie. but it could be the biography of Jimmy Dean. He was way ahead of time culturally and when it came to style. Was probably born ten years too early as far as the lifestyle that he lived.

I'm not an expert on James Dean, but the information I've seen on him is that he's a pop culture superstar. People love him, because he was cool. I mean lets face it, he died at 24 and had just three film credits under his belt. Not exactly a deep resume to go on and to judge his life by. People like Dean because he was cool, he was real, he was honest, he played himself in his movies, he seemed like he wasn't acting, but being a real person instead. In many ways reminds me of the great actress Kim Novak who had the ability to literally become the person that she was playing. She also had some luck there, because a lot of the roles she had were very similar to who she was in real-life. Jim Dean is a lot like that, but of course without as deep of a resume. So there's a lot to like about Dean and easy to see why so many people still love him.