Salon Magazine: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher's Berkley Speech is a Mistake

Source:The New Democrat

I'm going to give you a prefect example of what right-wingers are talking about when they say what conservative writer Jonah Goldberg titled in his book back in I believe 2008, what he called Liberal Fascism. Even though the title Liberal Fascism is a bogus title. I mean you can't be both a Liberal and a fascist, you know it is one or the other. Just like you can't be both a Socialist and a corporatist. You can't be anti-corporate, which is what Socialists are and be a pro-corporate, which is what corporatists are.

Berkley University, which is what I call California University, has or a group of their left-wing ill-liberal students have decided that they not only do not agree with comedian, left-wing comedian, by the way Bill Maher's views on Islam, but that they do not want him speaking at their university. So the school has canceled the Maher speech there. Now here's a couple of reasons why that is a big mistake. One is practical because Berkley is a public university and part of the California State Government. So Maher's free speech rights to me at least as a non-lawyer are being violated.

But the other issue gets to a philosophical one. Banning someone or canceling on someone because you not only disagree with your views, but you are offended by them. "Don't allow that guy to speak because we disagree with him and he would be saying things that we don't want our people to hear". Fascism 101 and why right-wingers call some on the Left 'liberal fascists'. Even though again there's nothing liberal about fascism, because the main value of liberalism is free speech and the right for one to speak freely regardless of what others may think about what they have to say.

I mean you are so offended or believe what someone is saying is no wrong and just utter garbage (or something else), let the person speak and then show people how wrong they are. That is what liberal democracy and free speech are about. The right to be heard and to be able to make your case. Knowing that you are not the only person in that country with that right. And that may include people you make disagree with. Which is something that people who are on the far-left in America, people who I call leftist fascists who are addicted political correctness, do not understand. 

Sam Harris: Interview With Cenk Uygur

Source:The New Democrat 

What I respect about Sam Harris's Atheism is that he's the real thing. He doesn't say Christianity is horrible and should be put down, especially when radical fundamentalists are in the news doing horrible things. But then defends the right of fundamentalists Muslims when they do and say horrible things about people they do not like and defend their right to free speech and Freedom of Religion. Even when these leftist political correctness radicals probably are against Freedom of Religion.

My example of that would be Salon and their coverage of now famous Real Time With Bill Maher show  that Sam Harris and Ben Affleck were on. When Ben Affleck was defending political correctness when it comes to criticism of Muslims, but have no problem attacking Christians when they do and say things that probably most Americans not just disagree with, but even find disgusting. Salon is garbage by the way. (And that is putting it nicely ) They are not much more than a propaganda operation for the far-left in America.

If you a real Liberal and even a real Atheist, you are not going to defend the right of free speech for people you agree with as a Liberal, while trying to shut up the opposition. As we see with leftist fascists on campus that try to block right-wingers from speaking at their schools. And if you are a real Atheist, you are not going to bash one religion and say that it is evil or whatever, while you are saying another religion is perfectly normal and legitimate. One of the points of being an Atheist is that you don't believe in religion and are against religion period. Which I believe is two of the points that Sam Harris is making.

The Carol Burnett Show: Dinner & A Movie

Source:The New Democrat

Alan Alda playing Captain Cliche on The Carol Burnett Show. The man who probably watches too much TV and too many movies and unable to think for himself. Doesn't sound that unfamiliar to the faddists who follow every trend just to be cool or awesome. We especially see that with technology today where so many Americans feel the need and must have the latest technology, computer, smart phones etc. Because they won't want to be the only one that doesn't have the latest phone or whatever. And be the only one with Iphone 5 instead of 6 or whatever.

I called Alan Alda Captain Cliche in this scene, but Cookie Cutter would've worked to. Someone not able to think for them self especially when they are talking to people they like and want to like them. So what they do to compensate is use material that they've heard from other sources. There's cookie cutter humor that I'm not a fan of that we see today with so many sitcoms and movies using other people's material and lines because it worked and sound cool there, so they use that with their project as well.

But if you know the real Alan Alda as opposed to this dope he played in this sketch, which he did very well, not that it takes a lot of effort to play a dope, but you know that Alda is anything, but cookie cutter or cliche when it came to his own humor. And that he is very spontaneous and off the cuff, flip and real quick with his wit. As we saw with MASH where he had a big role in the material that was used and as we've seen throughout his carer and with his personal appearances. 

Inside the Actors Studio: Kevin Spacey's Impressions

Source:The Daily Journal

People have asked me what's my style of humor, my sense of humor and how I come up with lines and so-forth. I'm not saying I'm a professional comedian or anything (at least I haven't gotten paid for being funny, yet) . But I have been able to make people laugh hysterically, intentionally and unintentionally in the past. And I've told them simply my sense of humor is off the cuff, I say what's on my mind when I'm thinking it. Rather than "that sounds funny and use it two weeks later". To me humor has to be fast and relevant. Example of a bad joke. Cracking jokes about Priests at a football game, is probably not a smart play.

First of all you're likely to offend a lot of people there and not seem funny, but insulting. Which to me are two different things, but you're going to get strange looks (or end up wearing someone else's lunch) like making a Catholic joke at a football game when some half-naked moron runs on to the field during the game and people will look at you like "what does a drunk Priest in Church have to do with the guy who ran on the field". You're humor needs to be relevant and needs to make sense. And what I do is, I see myself as an analyst of life, we all are and I make judgements and comment on things that I see whatever is that interests me. If you watch the sitcom MASH or Seinfeld, that's exactly what they do. Here's the situation, what you think about it and they would look for the funny side of it.

Alan Alda who played Hawkeye Pierce, my favorite sitcom character of all time. If not in TV in general would be performing surgery and cracking jokes as he's doing it while saving the patients life. One to relax the people he was working with in that stressful environment, but also to relax himself. "This is the situation and this is what's funny about it was their approach to comedy". To give you a personal example, I use to work in customer service, have about twelve years experience of that. And we were surrounded by people, customers mostly for whatever reason, they were nervous or whatever. But would go brain dead when they would approach you and ask the dumbest questions possible.

No joke when I worked at a movie theater, we had to wear these loud maroon colored red polo shirts. With the name of the movie theater on them, with these corny name tags on them. I'm Joe or Sally or whatever, with your name on them obviously, (what was the first clue). We just got a lot of customers that were either, drunk, high or both or perhaps just had brain surgery, but their doctor actually removed their brain by accident.

Smart answers to dumb questions

Customers would constantly walk up to me and ask, do I work here. And seriously this is no joke, I would always reply with a smart ass answer and I never got in trouble for it. And I would say no, I stole this shirt or I'm a member of the theater fan club.

"Do you sell popcorn?" No we are the only movie theater in America that doesn't sell popcorn. We sell Chinese food instead, but sorry no chopsticks you have to eat with your hands.

Again true story, one day I'm in a ticket booth, selling tickets, naturally. (If you would guessed I was selling sporting equipment, you would be wrong). And someone asked, me where do you buy tickets, I told them three blocks down the street at the gas station, but if you want your oil changed or need gas, you have to buy it here.

Another person asked what size is the small popcorn. I said small we aren't trying to fool you with false advertising even though that would be very tempting because of the quality of our customers. "Well what does it look like"? It looks small. Again no joke someone asked how much are free refills, I told them five bucks, but we only take travelers checks. Again this is the situation in front of me and that's what I was thinking right at that moment.

That's the style of humor that you get from Kevin Spacey the actor/director/writer, but I would throw in comedian as well. The guy could've been a full-time professional comedian if he wanted to. Watch the movies Swimming with The Sharks and Hurley Burley, The Big Kahuna and you'll see what I mean. I would add Chris Walken and Tom Hanks to that list because their humor is so spontaneous, off the top of their heads, they don't need scripts or writers. They do that for themselves which is what all great comedians do and is a style of humor I've patterned mine behind.

Lain Lucey: Same Time Next Year (1978) Starring Alan Alda & Ellen Burstyn

Source:Lain Lucey-

Source:The New Democrat

Same Time Next Year might be the best romantic comedy of all-time. And if it isn’t, it might be the smartest romantic comedy of all-time and definitely in the top one percent of both categories. Because I don’t believe it was trying to be funny, but the movie was just so natural. With the two main characters George and Dorris played by Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn, who were just so real with both having noticeable flaws that came out often especially George. And the two both looking for something different in their relationships.

The only part of the movie I do not get is the opening scene. Why would two happily married people be out in the country by themselves having dinner by themselves? What were they doing there all alone when they are both happily married with kids. But that is how the movie and this love affair that is only one weekend a year, but for the next twenty-six years starts. And this would actually be a movie that should’ve had a second chapter. To see how this couple made out because both of their spouses die in the movie.

What I also love about this movie is when George and Helen weren’t making love in the movie, the rest of the movie was conversational between this couple. And you get to learn so much about them. About how vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence George was. And how unsure he was and easy to blame himself about things and how bad of a liar he was. To Helen wanting a stronger man in his life stronger than the man here husband was. These are two very good caring people, but two real people looking for something different in their lives.
Source:Lain Lucey

Chris Early: Dallas: The Best of J.R. Ewing

Source:The Daily Journal

The J.R. Ewing character played by Larry Hagman is one of my favorite characters of all time on TV. Because he was so real, didn't try to be the nicest guy in the World and wasn't the meanest. But he was one of the best, let's say dick's of all-time, not because he was the meanest, but because of how clever and funny he was. And the words he chose to at other peoples expense. J.R. Ewing was a dick, but he played by Larry Hagman was so good at it, that you almost had to respect him for it. "That asshole can really put you down". 

J.R. is one of those people that you always knew where you were with him. And if you weren't on the top of your game, he would be more than willing to let you know about it. Kinda of like that judge mental parent or perhaps uncle, where nothing is ever good enough for them. So what you always do is everything you can to try to please that person, to keep them from criticizing you. Which helps you in a way, because it gives you incentive to improve and be at your best. The constructive critic. 

I call J.R. Ewing who was played by Larry Hagman of course and I'm not sure anyone could've played J.R. better, because their sense of humors matched up so well, the funniest prick in the Southwest. Because he knew how to put someone down, or put them back in their place, especially when they were out of line. But he was accurate and direct. Someone who would tell you the way it is and make you laugh at the same time.  

Golden Girls: The Best of Sarcastic Dorothy

Source:The Daily Journal

I was never a huge fan NBC's Golden Girls, a sitcom about senior single women sharing a house together. But I did love the Dorothy character played by Bea Arthur because she reminded of my maternal grandmother. Who I believe is where I got my flip off the cuff sense of humor, a wiseass who has very little tolerance for stupid questions. My grandmother was very similar and when my grandfather would say something lets say not real bright, or ask a dumb question, she would nail him for it every time even with company.

So I tried to be more careful how I talked to her unless, I wanted a real good laugh because I new I could nailed for saying something dumb as well. Sarcasm when done right is the perfect tool to combat stupidity. And people who for whatever reason are having a brain camp at your expense and so what you get to do if you're up for to the task is show them how dumb they are being and how bad their lack of thinking is at that point.

I've been lucky to a certain extent. Because I've had jobs in the service industries where I have a lot of experience around people who for whatever reasons aren't thinking very well. And end up asking questions they should already know the answers to. Or are simply unaware that they know the answer to whatever question they are asking. So when I get a dumb question, I nail the person for it not to make them feel like an idiot. Just to let them know that they just asked a dumb question. And they should've put a little more thought into it before asking me that question again. 

And when I'm on, I can even get funny response out of the person who I just called out for not being very bright. 

For example lets say to make up a character, I tell Joe I'm flying to St. Louis from Washington. I've never actually landed in St. Louis, flown over it sure, but for the purpose of this example I've flown to St. Louis. And he says "so you are taking a plane?" And I say no Joe I've borrowed the wings of a bald eagle and going to fly myself. And Joe says something like "try not to run into any birds. I know how limited your flying experience is". Or something like that. 

Sarcasm when done right is a tool to combat stupidity. I prefer to use the term flip or off the cuff. Because sarcasm can be very mean, when you have someone whose overly cynical and whose always looking for the weakness in anything just to put someone down. Sarcasm at its best is a tool to let someone know. "You know what, thats' a real dumb question. You should know better and perhaps do and just aren't thinking very well right now". By showing that person how dumb they sound at that point.

My definitions of dumb questions are any question asked by someone who already knows the answer to the question they are asking, but not aware of it or someone who should know the answer to the question they are asking. But lacks basic fundamental knowledge and whose just being lazy. And my other definition of a dumb question is a question that has the answer in the question, but who's simply not aware of that. And I'll explain what I mean. My example of a dumb question where the person who asking the question should know better, but asks the question anyway.

Lets say you are driving to someone's friends house for a visit or dinner or whatever. And they call you while you are driving to get an idea when you'll be over and you say I'm on the road now. And I should be there in that about twenty minutes. And your friend says "you are driving now?" Of course you are driving now you just said you are on the road you told the person last night you are coming over. They know you drive and so-forth.

My other example of a dumb question, the question with the answer in it. I use to work at a movie theater and worked concessions a lot and someone would ask me. 

"What size is small"? Well its small obviously or we wouldn't call it small. And every time I was asked that question I would say well small and I never got in trouble for it. To go to my first example of a dumb question, when I worked at that theater I was always asked do I work there. What else would I be doing there wearing that cheesy maroon shirt and name tag if I didn't work there.

Again Sarcasm when used effectively is a tool to combat stupidity, "you sure you don't know the answer to that question". To let the person know they should've put a little more thought into that question. And when sarcasm is misused, it's the ultimate mental weapon to put people down and to try to make them feel worthless or stupid. So if you do have a quick off the cuff sense of humor, have a conscience as well because you'll make a lot of people laugh without sounding like an asshole.

Salon Magazine: Michael Burstein: 'We Need a New Constitution'

Source:The New Democrat

Michael Burstein's amendments, or even new United States Constitution was not as radical or social democratic as I was expecting. I perhaps was expecting to see proposals that would move America away from its federalist tradition and system and try to move to more of a unitarian form of government. Where the states aren't nearly as powerful with as much responsibility, because that responsibility would now be in the hands of the Federal Government. Michael Lind who also writes at Salon has proposed doing things like that.

But to get the Burstein proposals and what I would do differently.

Congressional Term Limits

I'm against them for both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and I'll tell you why. I don't like the idea of government telling me or any other American who we can vote for. And this is what I would do differently. Guarantee the Right to Vote, so there's one amendment I would like to see to the U.S. Constitution. And end gerrymandering for both Democrats and Republicans. How you do that? The states would still write their U.S. House districts under the condition that each district would have to represent the state. So you a state 55-45 one way or the other or even closer than that, say like Texas or California.

California is more like 70-30 for Democrats. The state couldn't put all of the Democrats or Republicans in one district or a few districts. They would have to spread them out. And if the state is 55-45 for one party or the other or closer than that, than that is how the districts would look. So the majority would get a majority of the districts, but it would have to be represented of their overall state majority. And the state would no longer look like that only Republicans or Democrats would live there. Because the other party would have several districts that favor their party as well.

Term Limits for the U.S. Supreme Court

I'm against that because now we are not talking about limiting voters choice in who they can vote for. But limiting the President's choice in who they could appoint or reappoint, which is my next point. The U.S. Supreme Court is simply under represents a country of 310 million people with fifty states. Not proposing to turn the U.S. Supreme Court into a democratic institution. Just saying that nine members is simply too small, especially in a country this huge and this divided politically. I would go to fifty justices not including the Chief Justice and their deputy, as well as a Minority Leader to try to organize the minority on the court. One U.S. Justice for each state. and have each Justice serve six-year terms and then have to be reappointed to stay on the Court.

Public Financing of U.S. Elections

Another bad idea. Why? Because now you're taking more power away from American voters. And you may argue that the current system does that. True, but this would be another way of doing that by saying that the only roles that voters have is to vote and perhaps volunteer. But not be able to endorse the candidate or incumbent of their choice. The person that may represent them in the House or Senate or as President. And what would make that worst that now all us as taxpayers would be forced to subsidize candidates and incumbents that we simply do not like and perhaps are even doing a bad job. Public financing is another way of saying taxpayer financing of public elections.

But here's what I would do instead. Full-disclosure of all campaign contributions to call campaigns. Everyone and every group that raises money for political campaigns would have to report those contributions and contributors to the Federal Election Commission that would be publicly reported. So no more dark money or dark packs because all of these groups Left and Right will now be public and so would their contributors. And if they are controversial, candidates and incumbents would think twice about taking money from them if they believe those public contributions could hurt them politically. And we would probably see less negative and false advertising as a result.

Right to a Quality Education

Finally Michael Burstein and I agree on something! Now the only question is how we bring that about. The Federal Government of course in a country this size and diverse should not be running the education system. Or create one education system, because the fact is we have hundreds or more education systems in this country. Which simply comes from being this big, this diverse, this spread out and frankly this liberal with all of the decentralization of power in the country. At least at the governmental level.

But with all of the poverty and impoverished areas of the country and with education being a national priority because of how it affects the economy, there has to be a real federal role for education in America. Which is mostly about funding and research and to a certain extent seeing that basic needs are met. Are all students getting an education or regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or not and that includes special needs students. We obviously can't guarantee equal outcomes as much as Socialists may believe they can. But what we can guarantee is that every student has a quality opportunity to be successful in America regardless of where they go to school.

So what the Federal Government should do is give the underserved school districts and states the resources, financially mostly that it needs to see that all of their students have the tools that they need to do well.

Encourage financially people who are well-educated to teach in underserved areas.

Encourage things like public school choice so no student is forced to go to a low-performing school.

Lets pay teachers like lawyers and doctors and the Feds could help with the financing to pay those salaries.

Make college free for all qualified high school graduates who serve in public service for at least two years after graduating college. The Feds could finance that. And for qualified high school graduates who decide not to serve in public service after graduating college, make their college affordable with a college financing program that they, their parents, their employers and their parents employers would all pay into until the student is ready for college.

Michael Burstein proposed a lot of things I disagree with as far as what he would do. But did put some goals and ideas on the table that if were amended the way I did, or something close to that, I could go along with that would improve our liberal, not social democracy in America. 

TruthDig: Sonali Kolhatkar: 'The Rise of the New Libera

Source:The New Democrat

Sonali Kolhatkar column in TruthDig just illustrates my point about the political correctness movement on the far-left in America when it comes to Islam. In their little world its acceptable to bash the Christian-Right. But when you bash lets say the Islamists who ideologically in a  lot of ways do not look much different from the Christian-Right at least on culture issues, like women's place in society, you get put down as a racist. Why? Because Muslims tend not to be Anglo and Western-European ethnically and racially. Which is really what this is about. Protecting non-Caucasians against people they see as bigots.

Liberals aren't putting down Muslims as a people and perhaps even Islam. Even though Islam is probably way too restrictive for the average Liberal. We are putting down and critiquing Islamists, which is different. Islamists are terrorists and people who support terrorism in the name of Islam. The same way the Christian-Right when they bash gays and other people claim to be doing that in the name of Christianity and Christ.

ISIS/ISIl in Iraq and Syria are not Muslims in the sense that they do much of a job of living up to Islamic principles and values. They are terrorists and murderers and do those horrible deeds in the name is Islam. Which makes them Islamists and they want to control the Levantine area of the Middle East and murder as many Americans as they can to achieve that. And these are the people that Liberals and others on the Left are critiquing and putting down, because they deserve that. Even if the far-left calls us racists as we are doing so.

Jas Bains: Catherine Bach-The Real and Only Daisy Duke From the Dukes of Hazzard

Source:The New Democrat

When I was growing up my favorite TV show was probably The Dukes of Hazzard. A CBS action comedy where everyone on the show met about every single stereotype both good and bad of what life and the people were like living in the country. It took place in a small county called Hazzard. Naturally with a police department that had two sometimes three cops including the sheriff who was named Roscoe. It had people with names like Daisy, Roscoe, Cletus, Enos, Cooter.

Guest stars with people with names like Billy Bob, Billy Joe, Marly Lu. It had every two name, name you can think of. It had dirt roads, country music, car races and car chases. Great country food, with the fried chicken, mashed potatoes, biscuits and gravy. Fast cars being chased by big police cars. A town where everyone knew each other and where the whole town knew when someone from out-of-town was in Hazzard.

It had Pickup Trucks, farms, crooked politicians and cops, ignorant people who didn’t seem to know what they were doing. It had moonshine whisky, a county next door called Chickasaw that only had one cop, the Sheriff on the Police Force. And it had a lot of beautiful sexy women on it. Including Catherine Bach who played Daisy Duke. Forget about Jessica Simpson who played Daisy Duke in the movie Dukes of Hazard. She’s more qualified to play Sally Smith head cheerleader at Valley High, then to play a country girl.

The hot, sexy baby-faced country girl was the perfect role for Catherine Bach on Dukes of Hazard. Because she was and actually still is gorgeous, baby-face adorable with a great body. Two of the best legs this country has ever seen, just like Tina Turner or Raquel Welch. She was very funny and even though she was (actually still is) baby-face adorable, could probably kick ass as well as he her cousins Bo and Luke Duke. Played by John Schneider. (Great last name by the way) And Tom Wopat the brains of the operation. And as adorable and sexy as Daisy was, you didn’t want to mess with here, because she could kick your ass and look hot doing it. In her famous tight denim jeans and shorts.

And her tight denim jeans and cowgirl boots, Catherine Bach now has her own Denim Line. She was no Sally from the Valley, but a tough but adorable sexy country girl. Who could be sweet as candy until you messed with her. Catherine Bach will always be Daisy Duke and since she played that role perfectly. Unfortunately will always be typed cast, because it’s so hard to think of anything else other than Daisy Duke when it comes to Catherine Bach. But she has done other things and has actually has been very active and successful pre and after. Dukes of Hazzard and is someone who’s career should be looked at. To give her the type of respect she actually deserves.

The original Dukes of Hazzard tv show, was and still is the Dukes of Hazzard, at least as far as I’m concern and as far as a lot other Dukes fans are concern as well. The recent movies and everything else are for a younger generation where everything that was around before they were even born or old enough to remember is considered, “like so yesterday and so over and needs to be changed for the new century. But there are reasons why sequels to great shows and movies tend not to be as good as the original. Because the original was done so well, that any new version of it looks like pretend or a copy.
Source:Jas Bains

All in the Family: Archie Bunker On Democrats & the 1970s

Source:The New Democrat

Oh the 1970s, a decade about sacrifice and millions of Americans learning about their government and their politicians and that they didn’t like a lot of them. But of course as George Carlin always said, “no one put a gun to your head and forced you to vote for. A or B or reelect A or B”. That we get the politicians and the government that we vote for. So who do voters who vote for the wrong people have to blame.

The 1970s starts off radically enough with the Vietnam War and millions of Americans wanting to get the hell out of there. And can you blame them with all the people we lost. To Vietnam War demonstrations with a crime family running the White House. Because they didn’t trust their own country and their own people and a lot of them voted for Richard Nixon. To Watergate and the Nixon team breaking into Democratic headquarters. That didn’t have a January heat wave in Alaska’s chance of defeating President Nixon for president. To a president essentially being forced to resign as president or be fired by Congress.

We go from Tricky Dick Nixon as president. To stumbling bumbling Gerry Ford as president, our own president who was never elected president or vice president. It gave Americans a taste of what communist rule looks like and they spit that out by voting for a peanut brain, I mean peanut farmer in Jimmy Carter for president. Whose idea of leadership was to blame America for the country’s problems.

It is a good thing I was only alive for four years of the 1970s. Because if I had to go through that whole decade and old enough to remember all of it, I might have ended up being institutionalized for depression. Because the 1970s was a depressing decade. Sure the women’s designer denim jeans revolution of the late 1970s helped and was great for men to see, but most of the rest of the decade was depressing.

Thom Hartmann: Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved- Debating the Role of Government in America

Source:Thom Hartmann- left-wing talk radio host Thom Hartmann, debating right-wing radio host Michael Medved in 2009,

Source:FreeState MD

“The Great Debate was a political debate between progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann against conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved on a verity of topics.”  

From Thom Hartmann

This debate reminds me of the debate that Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas, had against Conservative Republican Senate Barry Goldwater in 1961 or 62.

Norman Thomas was perhaps the leader of the democratic socialist or social democratic movement in America. And Barry Goldwater was Mr. Conservative, perhaps at least the leader of the Conservative Republicans not just in Congress, but perhaps in the entire Republican Party back in the 1960s and the conservative-libertarian movement in America at the time, even though real Conservatives back then weren’t called Conservative-Libertarians.

What you have in this debate is Thom Hartman representing the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists (even if Thom doesn’t call himself a Democratic Socialist) versus Michael Medved representing the lets say economic Libertarians and perhaps Conservative Libertarians as a whole.

So this debate is really about bigger government and perhaps even unlimited government, at least as it relates to economic policy, from Thom Hartmann, versus limited government, as least as it relates to economic policy, in Michael Medved.

Oliver Stone: 'The Doors (1991) The Miami Incident: Val Kilmer as Jim Morrison

Source:Zobba Zoo- actor Val Kilmer as The Lizard King Jim Morrison, in Oliver Stone's The Doors.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Best scene in the movie, a perfect recreation of the night of Jim Morrison's indecent exposure arrest, features "Touch Me," "Five To One," "Dead Cats, Dead Rats," and, of course, "Break On Through" 

From Zobba Zoo 

As I mentioned yesterday, The Doors is a very entertaining movie and in at least one sense is accurate as portraying Jim Morrison as a very wild and perhaps immature young man. Who fit in very perfectly in the 1960s generation and the time he grew up in and came of age. But the Miami concert scene is one of the few accurate scenes in the movie. The Lizard King did show up to the 1969 Miami concert, not high, but drunk and was a few hours late. 

Morrison was noticeably off and did an awful job and even had a hard time standing up because he was so drunk from the plane ride and from the bar before the flight. Morrison did stop singing all together, got frustrated and started cussing at the audience. And they did boo him and security had a hell of a hard time trying to secure the arena because it was so hot, wild and overcrowded. Sort of like an American prison actually. But the Miami scene and the New Haven scene might be the only two accurate scenes in the movie.

If you are simply just looking for a good fictional movie about a rock and roll band, The Doors is probably a good movie for you. But if you are really interested in the life of Jim Morrison and perhaps the run that The Doors had, I suggest you go the documentary route that is just as entertaining about The Lizard King and The Doors band. But you'll actually learn some things about them as well.

Oliver Stone: The Doors (1991)

Source:The Daily Journal

The Oliver Stone 1991 The Doors movie was a very entertaining movie and worth watching and Val Kilmer did a very good job of playing an entertaining Jim Morrison aka the Lizard King. But other than the Miami concert and perhaps the New Haven concert and maybe the New Haven jail scene and the Lizard King's outfits, this wasn't a very accurate movie. And this is according to Doors band member guitarist Robby Krieger. First of all Val Kilmer is around 6'1 and 200 pounds, he's a big tall man. Where according to The Doors themselves, the real Lizard King was around 5'10 and slender. The Miami concert was crazy as it should've been with Morrison trying to perform drunk and getting frustrated and taking it out on the audience.

Jim Morrison trying to make it look like he pulled down his leather jeans (black or brown?) and exposed himself which according to the real Doors band, he never did, but wanted to make people believe he did. And the New Haven scene was fairly accurate, with the Lizard King getting maced in a hall closet before the concert when he was fooling around with a girl, by a cop. And then going out on stage and doing a good job, but then slowing down and getting frustrated and telling the audience about what happened to him in the closet.

And the jail scene was accurate too, with Morrison getting stripped down. And the movie nailed the Lizard King's outfit down, with over an hour of coverage with Val Kilmer wearing the Lizard King's go to skin-tight lambskin black leather jeans, which Val Kilmer pulled off very well. But the rest of the movie was an entertaining fiction novel with moving pictures. The Doors movie is very entertaining and if you're looking for an entertaining fictional rock and roll movie, then I suggest you watch Oliver Stone's The Doors. But if you want an accurate picture of Jim Morrison and The Doors, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Dusty Mendoza: Janet Jackson- 'Live in Tampa, Florida: December 4, 2011'

Source:Dusty Mendoza- Janet Jackson: Up Close and Personal (2011)

Source:The New Democrat 

"Janet Jackson Live Tampa, Florida December 4, 2011"  

From Dusty Mendoza

I think the thing that most impresses me most about Janet Jackson, is the dancer. Janet dancing on stage is truly a pleasure and watching her dance in a music video the same thing. She is not someone who typically sits on a stool, or stands in front of a microphone and just sings. She sings obviously, but she's usually on the move as she's singing and having to perform the song as well. Her own music and the dance routine at the same time. 

And then you combine the great body and the great shape that she's always in and those classic Levi's black denim jeans with the boots and t-shirt or leather jacket and get to see her move in that outfit and showing everyone what she has to work with (so to speak) and you have one of the most entertaining and sexiest performers you'll ever see. Even if you're not crazy for her music, but perhaps crazy for great entertainment and sexy yet professionally well-done entertainment.