Politico Magazine: Derek Robertson- 'How Howard Schultz Created a Personality Cult at Starbucks'

Source:POLITICO Magazine- Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. 

Source:The Daily Review

"Ever since former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced his potential independent presidential bid, the feedback has been … mixed, to be generous. Democrats denounced him as a misguided election spoiler at best, and an entitled egomaniac at worst. Schultz hasn’t done much to dispel those characterizations, with a string of defensive statements and acidic attacks on Senators Kamala Harris’ and Elizabeth Warren’s policy agendas. It was a botched rollout that led to some fairly obvious questions: What is this man’s policy agenda? Why might he be running for president? Who was asking for this?"

From POLITICO Magazine

"Before he was a possible presidential contender, Schultz was the coffee giant's CEO. He first spoke to "60 Minutes" in 2006. For more, click here:CBS News"

Source:CBS News- Howard Schultz, before he was a  narcissistic wannabe politician.

From 60 Minutes

I'm not interested in Howard Schultz's so-called potential independent presidential run at least for this piece, but more interested in what he created not just with Starbucks, but the broader pop culture in America. Starbucks, really since the late 1990s or so is not just just a coffee house, but it's a fashion statement and status update. Americans, especially yuppies and hipsters not just like Starbucks coffee, but feel the need to be seen liking that coffee and feel the need to have everyone know that they like that coffee and go to if not Starbucks on a regular basis, perhaps some other popular coffee house in their community.

Starbucks cups are not just coffee cups, but their fashion statements. Hipsters and yuppies feel the need to not just walk down the street holding their Starbucks cup or another coffee house cup, even if their cup is empty, but feel the need to be seen either on their phone or looking at their phone, even if they're not actually speaking to anyone or don't have any latest texts or voice mails that they haven't seen or listen to yet, while holding their coffee house cup at the same time.

Coffee house coffee whether it's Starbucks or any other coffee, is to America and American pop culture, what tobacco was in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s before Americans figured out how addicting and how bad tobacco was for you. Except coffee house coffee and coffee you get at your local bakery or on the street, is a helluva lot better for you than tobacco and alcohol even. So you have a lot of hipsters and yuppies in America who know it's not only cool to drink and be seen with coffee house coffee, but it's not nearly as bad for you as tobacco or alcohol.

Starbucks, is not just a coffee house, but like with new technology especially smart phones they're ways of living. It's a way of life for them and way for people to be popular. "Look at Joe and Mary, they not only have the latest smartphone that just came out an hour ago, but they're in touch with the latest celebrity news stories and scandals, addicted to reality TV, and are addicted to Starbucks coffee and coffee houses as much as we are. Even know every single Starbucks drink by heart. They must be as awesome as we are." Which is how Starbucks customers, hipsters, and yuppies want to be seen. And Howard Schultz, is a big reason for this coffee house culture that we've been living with in America for the last 20 years or so. Whether he deserves credit or blame for that, I'll let you be the judge.

TIME Magazine: Chris Bailey: 'When Being Lazy is Actually Good For You'

Source:TIME Magazine- Good lazy?

Source:The Daily Review

I see the point that Chris Bailey is making here. He’s not arguing that people should sit on their asses and do nothing all day expect to pick up their I-Phone to order pizza or other takeout, including groceries and then sit on the couch and watch TV all day. And then after we do that for a few months, we’re now sitting on our fat lazy asses unless we run out of money and decide to become productive again and go back to work. If he was arguing that, I would have no respect for that argument.

Source:TiME Magazine- Overworked?

What Bailey is arguing here is that of course people should work and productive with their day and their time, but that we shouldn’t be consumed with those activities and make time to just chill-ax. There’s time for work and then there’s free time to do nothing that’s work and substantive. When you’re sitting on your couch watching a movie or just watching the tube, you should just be doing that. Perhaps eating as well and hanging out with your wife or husband, girlfriend or boyfriend or friends, family, but not hanging with just yourself or your people while also working, flipping through your iPhone or computer. That there’s work time and then there’s free time and that you shouldn’t combine the two.

Source:Let's Get Going- From Chris Bailey 

 I’m sort of the opposite of Chris Bailey on this, but I think I’m getting better. I work at home in my office and I write one blog article a week, but when I’m not doing that I’, doing other things that are related to my blog. Like looking for other things to blog about for the next coming weeks. updating older posts, doing research for future posts, talking to other people about what I’ve written and what I’m going to write about in the future. And as I’m doing this I got the news on as I’m working in my office to keep up with what’s going on during the day and seeing if there is anything else I should be commenting on for that day.

And then when I’m done for the day which now is around 9PM sometimes 7 nights a week, but as I said earlier I’m getting better at this and no longer working pass 11 five nights a week, I’m ready for dinner and just sitting back and watching the tube. Which is generally the news and hearing about what happened that day and what’s the most important stories for that day. What I’m working on now is once my workday is over and I’m ready for dinner is to turn off the news all together and just watch movies or classic TV, documentaries and sports that have nothing to do with what I’m working on or about to start working on. What I’m trying to do is completely separate my workday from my free nights and time in general and leave the news for the rest of the world and get back into it when I’m back at my desk the next day.

As great as new technology has been without how convenient it makes life for so many people, to also has at least two negative affects. It makes people obsessed with new technology because of how cool it is and how tied it has become to pop culture. The more you’re into new technology and the more knowledgeable you are about new tech, the cooler you are and since we have so many people obsessed with pop culture and being seen as cool and we have so many faddists in America now, we also have a lot more lazy people in the bad sense, because we have so many people that don’t think for themselves. Who are experts on the superficial like who their favorite celebrity is dating, what rehab they’re at, or why they’re in jail, what’s the latest i-Phone, when it’s coming out, what you have to do to be one of the first 5 people to purchase it so you can share that on Facebook, like you just won the lottery or something.

And because of this we have a lot of lazy people in the bad sense that they don’t think for themselves, because they’re so into to what’s the latest fad and being seen doing whatever the latest fad is and right now one of those fads is not just having the latest i-Phone, but being on it all the time. People don’t even watch football games or movies anymore without staring at their i-Phone while they’re doing that. Because they feel the need to respond to every single text when as soon as they get it, or someone else’s Facebook update or tweet, or responding to what someone else to said on their favorite social network. We have so many people who simply can’t relax, because they’re mind is always focused on several different things at one point. Even when they’re just watching a ballgame or movie, having out at their coffee house, they got multiple things going on with them at the same time.

Myself, I would like to work 8-10 hours a day or even more, but when work is over it’s really over and I don’t even feel the need to tweet a photo or plus it on Google+, or Facebook about what I’m doing after work. I would like to give up my social network habit even on my phone once I’m done with work during the day and just eat a good meal and enjoy a good movie or documentary, classic TV before I need to go to bed and be ready for the next day. It would be nice to take Saturday and Sunday completely off and not doing anything work related then, but even when I’m on vacation I actually need to be doing some work because I’m a blogger and get a lot of email. That’s just the life of a blogger and perhaps anyone who works in the media at all. But during the day, bike ride, work, and then be free at night and live the good lazy life. Not the the life of a lazy ass, which is different.

Source:Seeker: Julian Huguet- Why Laziness Can Be a Good Thing- Bad lazy?

E True Hollywood Story: Dallas

Source:Angela Mary- The women of Dallas; Victoria Principal, Linda Gray & Charlene Tilton. 

Source:The Daily Review

“Dallas E True Hollywood Story.”

From Angela Mary

There have been a lot of great soap operas both in the movies and on TV. The big ones of course today are The Young And The Restless, General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, but back in the day you had great prime time soap operas like Melrose Place, Dynasty, One Life To Live, Guiding Light, and movies that were soaps like Where Love Has Gone with Susan Hayward and Mike Connors, Love Has Many Faces with Lana Turner and Cliff Robertson, Strangers When We Meet with Kirk Douglas and Kim Novak.

But if I had to choose one over every other I have to choose Dallas because it represents soap opera at its best, which is what I’m going to explain.

When I think of great soaps I think of dramatic comedy at it’s best where you have really serious scenes and situations, but people and characters who are exactly that who do crazy things and seem somewhat out of control and yet always seem to know what they’re doing.

Like the JR Ewing character ( played by Larry Hagman ) on Dallas. Where you have serious situations with serious people, but doing crazy funny things. Like two adult women getting into cat fights and throwing pillows at each other. Happened multiple times between Linda Evans and Joan Collins on Dynasty.

Or two grown men getting into a fist fight at a restaurant because they’re interested in the same woman, with one of them saying: “look, we’re both adults here no need to fight for her.” Even though that’s exactly what happens two guys getting into a fist fight over a girl the kind of thing that happens in high school, but on Dallas or on another great soap opera it happens between two middle age men in public at a popular restaurant.

Dallas, wasn’t a drama or a comedy, it was both because it was a soap opera. You had a lot of serious situations and serious people, but with crazy immature people doing a lot and saying a lot of funny crazy things. Like with Larry Hagman on the show, who was like an evil bastard, except he was so good at it and funny at it you almost had to like him or at least respect him because he was so good at being a bastard.

The 1980s was a decade of excess where Americans had a lot of money and seemed to be in a hurry to spend as much of it as they possibly could as if they’re was a national money going out of business sale and you have to spend all of your money before it becomes worthless. And Dallas perfectly represented the 1980s with the actors and characters that they had, as well as the writers. Similar to how Easy Rider perfectly represented the 1960s.

It also represented a time when network TV was not only great, but relevant as well and where people wanted to watch CBS, ABC, and NBC every night and not just for sports and movies, but for programs as well. And almost 30 years later after Dallas finally went off the air after 13 seasons Dallas is still the best soap opera ever.

Oliver Wilson: Social Media: ‘Addictive, Frustrating But Here To Stay’

Source: Library Technology Launchpad- The big three on social media? 

Source:The New Democrat

“Social media: addictive, frustrating but here to stay.” I could leave it at what Oliver Wilson said in his blog post, but as a blogger myself I feel a duty to explain to my readers at least why I agree with that, but Oliver Wilson nails his piece with just the title of it.

As a blogger myself who has been blogging since 2009 or so I almost have to not just be online ( the only way to operate a blog ) but on social media. I mean if the blogger them self is not willing to share online what they wrote, why would anyone else. Doesn’t mean you have to officially like your own blog posts and hit the like button, but I do believe you have a duty to not only allow for people to subscribe to your blog, but then share it as well and allow for others to share your blog. Share options are critical for any blogger.

I have to be on social media as a blogger. A blogger without social media when you’re talking about a blog that you not only write for but personally own and manage, would be like a race car driver without access to a car. And I’m not just talking about race cars, but any cars in general not even a 1978 Ford Pinto. ( Sorry Millennials, for that history reference. I’m aware you’re not fans of history. ) Which means to be a blogger there a lot of benefits to that like people knowing what you’re thinking, at least your thoughts that you make public. As well as letting people know what you know, again your knowledge that you make public. But like with anything in life there’s pluses and minuses to anything you get involved with and social media might be poster child for plusses and minuses in life like the nonsense ( to keep it clean ) that comes to being a social media member.

Narcissism, is not new in America and has been around probably as long as we’ve been a country and I’ve been guilty of it myself. I could be watching a movie at home and I get a Twitter or Google+ notification on my I-phone that I’m really interested in looking at. Because someone just re-sahred, commented, or liked one of my posts. Or perhaps I just got a new follower on Twitter or Google+. With Facebook, which is my least favorite of the big three ( as I call them ) when I get a notification on the Facebook app unlike with Twitter and Google+ ( to paraphrase Oliver Wilson ) it’s generally someone posting in some group that I have very little interest in. And that’s when my Facebook app is working at all, the Twitter and Google+ apps are more reliable at least on my phone.

When I was brand new to Facebook about ten years ago a friend and I were talking on the phone and he was talking about his brother and saying that his brother has like only 5 friends or something like that on Facebook and making a big deal of that. Well, if you’re familiar with my friend’s brother you know the guy is rarely if ever on Facebook. Almost never posts. Facebook might be to him right now what sunny day to the rest of us. Something we see almost everyday ( unless you live in the Northwest ) and not that big of a deal.

As I told my friend several years ago social media to everyone is what everyone makes it to be for themselves. If it’s something you really like regardless of the network and you post a lot of interesting things like status updates, photos, links, etc and you do that daily, you’re going to be popular on that network even if you don’t personally know a lot of people and don’t have a lot of personal friends.

By the way, personal friends and Facebook friends aren’t the same thing. Personal friends are people that you actually know and have not just met in person, but hangout with in person and talk to on the phone. Facebook friends, are people you meet, well on Facebook. But to sound nasty here, if you have a life outside of social media and have plenty of things that keep you busy like work, family, your personal friends even, or are just someone who is fairly private and only want to share your news with people you personally know and trust, you’re probably not going to be very popular on your social media networks, unless you have a lot of personal friends on those networks.

The other thing that  agree with Oliver Wilson here has to do with smartphones. My point earlier being that narcissism isn’t anything knew in America. Donald Trump, is not the inventor of narcissism, but perhaps just the king of it. What social network have done for narcissism has exploded it to the point that it’s everywhere now. If you go to a coffee house today and you’re not staring at your I-phone, you’re the outsider and the stranger at that coffee house, bus stop, train station, grocery store, whatever place you want to use as an example, bar would be another one. Social media and smartphones, both came out at about the same time which is the early and middle 2000s, unless you count blackberry’s as smartphone because people have internet access on their blackberry.

And because of this smartphones and social media have  made high school teenagers out of people in their 40s now and have given a lot of middle age Americans the need to be popular. Except high school, is over for most of those people ( you would think anyway ) and now they’re teenagers in their 40s with social media and a smartphone. Gaining 10 new friends on Facebook ( or whatever the big number is ) is like their OMG moment of the day that they just have to share that or won’t be able to get through the rest of the day. Even if they’ve never even met a single one of their new FB friends and don’t even live in the same country with any of them, let alone short flight away from them. But being de-freiended by one person on FB during that day, is something that sends that person to their shrink or pouring a bottle of pills down their throat because they simply can’t deal with it. Or they go into a swearing rant on FB, to try to look cool again.

As I told my friend, social media regardless of what network or networks you prefer is what you personally make of it. For me Facebook, is just a place to posts my blog posts and to follow my favorite entertainers, as well as the real news, sports, etc. Especially since Facebook no longer allows their members to connect their Twitter with their Facebook page. Just another one of my annoyances with Facebook. If you really want to know what I’m up to online follow my blog, or my Twitter or Google+ pages. Where I also post my blog posts.

I just prefer Twitter and Google+, because they don’t have as many rules and you don’t have to friend request someone you personally don’t know just to follow them. With Twitter and Google+, you can follow anyone you want until they block you. Unless you’re an asshole or follow assholes, you’re probably not going to get blocked on Twitter or Google+. Plus ( no pun intended ) the communities on Google+ are great and are very active and is a great way to post your blog and get real reaction about what you’re writing with the GP communities. But for too many other people social media perhaps especially Facebook, has become a way of life. They can’t go to bed without knowing about everything that their so-called friends are doing and what they said on one of their own posts and it’s very sad to see people become so addictive to things that are just supposed to be hobbies and places where people can meet and talk.

Source: Austin Evans: Twitter vs Facebook vs Google+- Social media junkies?

Storm: Dallas- J.R. Ewing's Best Quotes

Source:Storm- The great Larry Hagman, as J.R. Ewing on Dallas.

Source:The New Democrat

Have you ever met a wiseass, perhaps asshole even in the jerk sense and not someone who consistently speaks, out of their rear let's say, but who just isn't a nice person who has a real rough streak and perhaps temper, but is so good at putting people and things down, perhaps even yourself that you almost have to give him credit for it? Similar to sports teams that are playing against anther team who has this incredibly great players who makes all of these incredible plays to hurt and beat you, that you almost feel like cheering and celebrating when he makes one of those great plays against you. Well, that is what J.R. Ewing ( played by the great Larry Hagman ) represents to me.

Source: Taigan McCauley- Larry Hagman, as J.R. Ewing on Dallas 

J.R. Ewing, wasn't a good guy and perhaps even a bad guy, perhaps not a criminal, but someone who at the very least would stretch the laws and rules to benefit. ( Similar to how a current President acts now and has during his entire career ) J.R. wasn't an evil man and he did generally love his family, including his kids, younger bother Bobby ( played by Patrick Duffy ) his parents and perhaps even some of his wives. J.R. had more wives than a lot of Mormons or Saudi men and probably didn't marry any of them including Sue Ellen ( played by the great Linda Gray ) because he loved those women. But similar to a Hollywood marriage to advance his career and saw marriage as a business opportunity.But was someone who would do just about anything to advance his career, including blackmail or hitting someone to rough up one of his competitors.

Source: Melissa Owens- Larry Hagman, as J.R. Ewing on Dallas 

That great line that Sue Ellen had about her husband J.R., where they were talking about horses and J.R sarcastically saying that a guy who is about to run a horsing stable knows which end of the horse is which, the front and back let's say and Sue Ellen with the great line saying, "we all know which end of the horse you are." Sue Ellen calling her husband a horses ass in public without out using those two words. J.R. was a horses ass, but he was so damn good at it that you had to respect, if not admire him for it.Because he had such a quick and sharp wit and would use humor to communicate how he felt about people and situations, to put people and situations in their places.

The J.R. Ewing line about the truth is in the eye of the beholder, obviously not something that J.R. coined or came up with himself, but an intelligent way of saying that the truth is relative. ( Again, does that remind you of any POTUS? ) If you're someone with the business background of a J.R. Ewing who was born a rich man with his own store of silver spoons with most of those being stuck in his mouth to the point that they were falling out, you don't learn unless you have great parents what's it's like to earn a living and earn a great living, because so much was given to you early on in life and you probably believe that life is easy. J.R. Ewing, was interested in expanding the wealth that he was born with, knowing he would never have to create something for himself and would step on anyone who got in his way. The truth was never his concern, but what was believable that could help him, whether it's truthful or not.

Bobby Ewing, was supposed to be the rich businessman with morals, who wouldn't screw people over just to advance his career, out screw women to do that ( ha, ha ) unlike his older brother J.R., but Bobby could be very tough when it came to protecting himself and his family, including his wife and kids. With J.R. sort of being the devil in this family and the anti-Bobby who saw business as a zero sum game with nothing but winners and losers. "You either destroy your competitors, or they'll destroy you," which is sort of the J.R. Ewing business handbook. Which is why I believe this relationship and brotherly love even worked so well on Dallas, because they counteracted each other and held each other in check.
Source:Storm

TIME Magazine: Julia Zorthian: 'How To Recover From Failure'

Source:TIME Magazine- When you fail, try and try again.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Embracing the sting of failure may not sound enjoyable — but new research shows it’s the best way to learn from mistakes.

A study in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making found that people who ruminated on their emotions about failure were likely to try harder to correct their mistakes than those who made excuses or didn’t let their failures bring them down.”

From TIME Magazine

I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend be one, but from what I know about the medical profession (which might only be enough to fill one paragraph) is that good doctors at least don’t try to fix the problems without first performing a diagnosis. They actually take the time to see what is the medical problem with the patient before they try to fix the problem. People get wrong prescriptions because their doctors given them the wrong diagnosis and recommend a prescription that might fix another problem, but not the problem that this patient is facing. People get even sicker or see their physical conditions worsen simply because their original problem wasn’t diagnosed properly and therefor not effectively treated.

Giving someone an aspirin to deal with a broken ankle might give the patient short-term pain relief, but still leaving the ankle broken and perhaps it even gets worst because the patient believes their ankle is recovering. That would be an example of an extreme misdiagnosis. Maybe the doctor was drunk when they looked at the patent’s ankle, or perhaps examined the head by accident, before recommending aspirin for the pain. But hopefully you get the idea.

Another way to look at failures and weaknesses lets say is from the perspective of an addict. Lets use alcoholic as an example. I’m not an alcoholic either, but from what I’ve read and even seem to some extent that the only way an alcoholic can recover is first acknowledging that they have a problem that they’re indeed an alcoholic. They drink too much alcohol, get drunk too much and perhaps to the point that being drunk is a normal condition for them. Which I guess would be an extreme form of alcoholism. So my only point here is to before you try to fix a problem or personal problems that you might have, you first have to diagnose the problem and know what the problem is. Once you’ve accomplished step a, you can work to addressing the problem with a recovery plan.

Right-wing author and radio talk show host Eric Metaxas who I agree with as often as Los Angeles sees snow in August, but who was on BookTV on C-SPAN in I believe September (some of us actually have hobbies outside of realty TV and social media and like to use our brains) made a good point about mistakes and even screw ups. And he essentially said that we’re all screw ups. Thats not the question or the issue. The question and issue is what do we do about them.

Do we ignore them and not learn from history and keep repeating the same mistakes and seeing our problems get worst? “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” Or do we acknowledge them, take them in and even absorb them and memorize that feeling to the point that it feels so bad not that we don’t want to be consumed by it and let our failures run our lives, but that we know the feeling of failure so well that we don’t want to feel like that again. Not about being pessimist or overly optimistic, but being in touched with reality so we know exactly what’s going on so we know what to do about it.

John F. Kennedy is  a political hero of mine, but one of the biggest reasons why is that he always challenged Americans to think and try to improve and move forward. Challenge the status quo not necessarily because the status quo was bad itself, but that we wanted us to be as good as we possibly can be. Which is one of my broad points here is that we all make mistakes and maybe Eric Metaxas isn’t completely right here and that we’re not all screw ups. I mean, if we were we would be nation of very stupid weak people who can’t seem to get anything right.

But Metaxas is right about at least one thing that we all screw up. And then the question becomes what was the mistake exactly and then figuring out what can be done about it. Unless you killed someone, including yourself and you’re not permanently paralyzed or are hurt so badly that you’ve been given a death sentence and will die in the short-term, whatever mistake you made there is a recovery plan to fix it. Or at least learn from it and do better in the future.

I’ll just leave you with this. For almost every problem short of killing someone and permanently paralyzing yourself, there’s a solution to that problem. It then becomes once you acknowledge that you have a problem and know what the problem is. For every mistake there’s a correction. Including horrible mistakes like running your business into the ground and going bankrupt, or making horrible investments that also lead to high debt and perhaps bankruptcy.

The alcoholism example is perfect here. Once you realize you are indeed an alcoholic and have a real problem there, you then can get treatment for it and recover. People have screwed up so badly in one profession that they can’t find any more work in that profession, but recover from that and prosper working in a different field. Take former White House Counsel John Dean who was part of President Nixon’s Watergate coverup who is now a successful author and columnist. A very successful writer now even though he was disbarred as a lawyer.

Step a, is acknowledging that you have a problem.

Step b, is knowing exactly what your problem is.

Step c, is putting together a recovery plan to fix the problem.

Step d, learning from your mistakes not to get overwhelmed by them, but so you know what went wrong and not to repeat the same mistakes. And then improving yourself so you do better in the future. Not about making mistakes in life. Of course we all do and perhaps have all made a lot of mistakes. The question is what do we do about them. Do we learn from them so we can do better in the future. Or ignore them and continue to repeat our negative history.

Newsweek: David Friend: 'Before Donald Trump Was President, Online Sex Videos, Bill Clinton & The Naughty 90s Changed America'

Source:Newsweek- With the way things are now, please take me back to the 1990s!

Source:The Daily Review

"It was January 26, 1992, a drowsier time when daily papers controlled the narrative of presidential campaigns; when CNN was the only cable news network on the air, and blogs didn't exist. Bill Clinton was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination and face President George H.W. Bush in November."

From Newsweek

And then he had what a chief adviser of his would come to call a catastrophic "bimbo eruption." Her name was Gennifer Flowers, and the Star, the supermarket tabloid, was about to publish a story saying that she and Clinton had had a 12-year affair. In response, the first couple of Arkansas had agreed to a do an emergency interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, to talk about their marriage. The Arkansas governor and his wife insisted on appearing together, and it was her words, more than his, that saved his candidacy.

"During this decade, the United States moved into a new era of domestic progress and evolving technology, but foreign conflicts and terrorism foreshadowed troubles on the horizon.  Join WatchMojo.com as we count down our picks for the top 10 defining moments in 1990s America."

From Watch Mojo

Source:Watch Mojo- I'll give you a penny if you name all three of these guys. Tax free, by the way. LOL

Now that I think about it and this Newsweek article that was written by David Friend contributed to it and even though he didn't argue this himself, but the more I think about it the 1990s is the decade when Liberals won the Cultural War.

In the 1990s there was one scandal after another both in politics and government, but in entertainment as well and yet America survived it and we prospered so much as a country in that decade with the end of the Cold War and the economic boom of that decade thanks to new trade, new technology, the deficit coming down and actually leading to a balanced budget by 1998. (Ask a Millennial what a balanced budget is and they'll tell you its a budget where everything is spent equally, because they've never seen one before) And a lot of Americans perhaps especially my Generation X, but Baby Boomers decided as a generation and country that its OK.

So what if a politician sleeps with women they're not married to and cheats on their wives. Thats bad for their wives and their children, but that doesn't affect me and its not my business anyway. Which I believe was the attitude about all of these scandals where it didn't involve people actually getting physically hurt or falsely accused.

We go from the King of Tabloids who was Donald Trump (yes, the same man) in New York and all of his affairs with other women when he was married with kids at the time, to Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas who just happened to be running for President in 1991-92 and one famous affair that he had in that time period of the late 1980s and early 1990s with Gennifer Flowers.

We had entertainment celebrities like Tommy Lee (from Motley Crew) and actress Pam Anderson and they having their sexual affair literally in public and making a video about it. O.J. Simpson was a real true crime story with two real murders involved and in that sense at least was a real story with real significance. And in that extent at least it was a serious story. But it was a tabloid story because of the main character involved, the other serious characters involved and where the story took place which was Los Angeles.

But go from the mid 1990s to the late 1990s and again with Bill Clinton who in many ways was a Hollywood character like John F. Kennedy with the cameras always on him with reporters writing down everything they hear and find out about him, but  then reporting it, unlike with JFK. With the Jack Stanton character from the movie Primary Colors (played by John Travolta) almost seeming too real. To Bill Clinton's last sex scandal from the 1990s involving him and a White House intern in Monica Lewinsky who is only two years older than me and 27 years younger than Bill Clinton obviously young enough to be his daughter.

But if that doesn't seem to be a big enough Hollywood story for you, how about the Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich who made it a priority of his to remove President Bill Clinton from the White House (one way or another) and was President Clinton's biggest critic of the 1990s, as well as one of his best partners as far as the legislation they were able to pass together in that divided government and continually bashed the President as being immoral for his sex scandals especially the Lewinsky scandal, gets caught having an affair with his secretary while he was married to another women. Newt Gingrich winning the title of Hypocrite in-chief. The closest he would ever come to being President.

America goes through all these scandals, the Christian-Right in America which has had more of their own share of sex scandals and other scandals in America (Jim Bakker, Jim Swaggart, etc) and yet they reach their highest point in America as far as political power and having a veto voice inside the Republican Party as far as where they have to be politically and get to decide its presidential nominees.

The Republican Party wins complete control of Congress of 1994 winning back the House for the first time since 1953 which they would hold onto until 2007 and win back the Senate in 1994 that they would hold onto until 2001. Plus the GOP would hold at least 30 governorships and a majority of state legislatures in the mid and late 1990s and would hold all of that power other than losing the Senate in 2001 and win back the presidency in 2001, until the late 2000s when Democrats finally won back the House and Senate in 2006.

With all of this political power moving to the Right and even Far-Right in the 1990s, Americans as a people and I believe with Generation X completely coming of age in the 1990s being a big factor of this, we essentially decided as a country, so what! So what if free adults have consensual affairs with people other than their spouses. Thats a matter between them and their families. Not something that should be decided by government certainly and shouldn't cost people their jobs even in public office simply because they are disloyal spouses.

I believe the 1990s gave rise to gay rights movement of the 2000s, and movements that opposed the War on Drugs, privacy thanks to the War on Terror in the 2000s, becoming a big issue and concern with the belief that government was becoming big government in our personal lives. The Culture War was ending in the 1990s because of everything that we went through as a country and people being able to see all of these individual scandals that in the 1950s would have ruined most Americans if those scandals were made public and in many cases people would have faced serious legal consequences for them even if they were private and consensual.

Americans saw these scandals and saw a lot of people behaving badly and irresponsibly, but deciding that those affairs aren't mind and people weren't getting hurt physically, financially, or being falsely libeled because of what someone did to them, this is not something that I should be personally concern with. And just let the people who were affected by this personal behavior decide for themselves what and if should be done about it. Instead of big government stepping in.

Floyd Anderson: 'Hunter S. Thompson's Famous 9/11 Interview'

Source:Floyd Anderson- one of Hunter S. Thompson's many books.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Hunter S. Thompson 9/11 Interview 8/29/2002” 

From Floyd Anderson

Source:FreeState MD- Hunter S. Thompson: an American original.

I don’t quite see George W. Bush as the devil that a lot on the lets say further Left, if not New-Left, or even Far-Left do. I see President Bush 43, more as an average guy who was way over his head and had he stayed in Texas, probably would have been fairly successful there. But I don’t disagree with much if anything that Hunter Thompson said in this video.

The Bush Administration, at least the National Security Council, wanted Iraq and 9/11 and the so-called weapons of mass destruction, became the original reason for invading a country that was simply not capable of even defending itself. I mean how long was the 2003 invasion, a week, maybe a month. It looked like a state high school football championship team taking on a winless freshman team in a football game.

By the anniversary of 9/11 in and even before that in the summer of 2002, the Bush National Security Council, had already decided it was going to invade Iraq and knock out the Saddam Hussein Regime. It was just a matter of finding enough evidence to get a divided Congress with a Republican House and Democratic Senate and the American people to back them.

Hunter Thompson, the smart guy he was, knew this and that is what he’s talking about here. “What comes after Afghanistan?” In the so-called War on Terror. And they decided that since the terrorists hit us from Afghanistan, we should attack a country and a dictator who had nothing to do with that. Which is what you call Neoconservative thinking. Which is an insult to real thinking everywhere in the world. 

The Carol Burnett Show: Disaster 75

Source:The Chick in The Middle- Carol Burnett & Harvey Korman: Disaster 75.

Source:The Daily Review

"Here's a classic spoof of the "Airport" series and other disaster films of the period, with guest stars Ken Berry and Carl Reiner. Carol Burnett also reprises her character of Nora Desmond, parodying Gloria Swanson's role in "Airport 1975" (1974).

I do not own any of the footage or music featured. All rights are reserved and belong to their respective copyright owners. No copyright infringement intended. For entertainment purposes only."

From The Chick in The Middle 

“Here’s Part 2 of “Disaster ’75”. Keep an eye out for a meta-referential Q & A session, a textbook example of meta humor, now commonplace in comedy."

Source:The Chick in The Middle- Carol Burnett: Disaster 75

From The Chick in The Middle 

“Highlights of this program with guests Ken Berry and Carl Reiner include: “Disaster ’75” (a parody of “Airport 1975”) with Carol as both the airline stewardess and silent film star Nora Desmond; Ken performs in a late 1800’s barbershop number; and a musical spoof of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, with Harvey as both host Alistair Cookie and King Claudius, Ken as the title character, and Carl as the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Written by W.B.” 

Source:IMDB- Carol Burnett: Disaster 75

From IMDB 

Any guesses to what movie this is a spoof from? I’ll give you a clue: you need to be familiar with movies from the 20th Century and at the very least have heard of the 1970s decade. If that era seems like the Civil War, or old school, or whatever to you, then you’ll have no idea what this is from. And you’ll probably have no interest in this piece.

Carol Burnett, of course is playing off from Airport 1975. I at least believe is the best of the 1970s disaster movies and perhaps the best disaster movie of all-time. Where you have a mid-air collision in it and you have the head stewardess flying the plane for a few hundred miles at least and getting help from the tower in order to do that.

Watching Nancy (played by the great Karen Black) fly and airplane and watching that little beautiful baby cutie fly that huge 747, was all the motivation I needed to see that movie.

I saw it for the first time when I was 18 and it quickly became one of my favorite movies. This movie combines I believe the best of soap opera, with all the side stories, humor and people going through rough times, with how professionals react when they’re put in the worst possible situation possible with hundreds of lives depending on them.

Carol Burnett, not as cute as Karen Black, but who is and she’s a lot funnier and perhaps just as good an actress. And it was great to see her flying a jumbo jet as well. Especially with I don’t know, Carl Reiner (just to throw out a name) talking her through the experience.

The 1970s, was a depressing can’t wait to get to the nearest ledge to jump off of Niagara Falls decade. But the movies were great and the genres and what people were interested in seeing from Hollywood was great. America, was interested in disaster movies, terrorism, cop movies, detective movies, soap operas, especially if the movie was well done with great casts and was also funny. And Airport 1975, was an example of that and perhaps the best movie from that genre in this decade. 

Woody Allen The Atheist

Source:Atheism is Unstoppable talking to Woody Allen.

Source:The Daily Review

I don't have a problem with actual Liberals being religious and actually if I had to guess just at looking at the Democratic Party, Liberals tend to be religious. But as a Liberal myself, I have a problem with being both religious, or an Atheist, because I simply don't know if there's a God, or not. Liberalism, is based of reason and evidence, not faith. And if you take the position that God doesn't exist, but you can't prove it, because no one actually knows, if we were all real about this, you have faith even as an Atheist that God doesn't exist.

I just don't work that way as a non-religious person who generally doesn't go by faith. I trust people, sure, because they've given me reason to trust them. But again that is based on actual evidence. Not having some grand vision and beliefs that there is some higher power out there watching over everyone. There isn't some Liberal God (at least that I know of) giving Liberals all of their powers and ideas. We developed them based on knowledge and evidence from what works. Education, freedom, responsibility and let people make their own decisions.

And because I don't have faith in whether there's a God or not, I'm neutral on the subject. I'm an Agnostic and I take strong positions on issues where there's clear evidence one way or the other. Which is how I have my liberal principles that are built around individuality, choice and responsibility. Because that is where the evidence suggests that I should be. Put out all of the facts and information about all of the issues on the table. (Just don't eat them) Educate everyone as best as possible, but at the end of the day let people make their own personal and economic decisions and hold them responsible for them.

I don't hold these values, because I have faith that they will work, but because there's clear evidence that they will work and have worked. Religion, is the opposite of that at least as it relates to God. "We can't see God personally, but we know he's there looking after us, because we have in faith in them." That doesn't mean anything to me and I'm not impressed by that. But others of course can make their own decisions. Which is what I believe in as a Liberal. It is one thing to have strong moral religious values about how you look at life. It is another to say, "this is what is right, because God told us that." How would you know that, did you ask him? Did you see him write that down somewhere? How do you know that God is a man? I don't have to answer these questions, because I don't believe in God, because I don't know if one, or many exist, or not.

Woody Allen Rare Standup (1965)

Source:The Daily Review-

Source: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.

Franken Splean: Omnibus- Hunter S. Thompson's: Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (1978)

Source:Franken Splean- Hunter Thompson, talking to BBC's Omnibus in 1978.

Source:The Daily Review

"BBC program Omnibus features Nigel Finch's 50-minute 1978 documentary of Hunter S. Thompson and Ralph Steadman, with cameos by John Dean, Brian Doyle & Bill Murray, Ray Romano, & probably other known entities I missed."

From Franken Splean

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.

Retro Viewing: I Love 1979

Source:Retro Viewing-

Source: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.

LA Progressive: W.J. Rorabaugh- 'Hippies Won The Culture War'

Source:LA Progressive- 1960s Hippies and American freedom fighters.

Source:The Daily Review

“As blue jeans, beards, body adornments, natural foods, legal marijuana, gay marriage, and single parenthood have gained acceptance in mainstream American society in recent years, it is now clear that the hippies won the culture wars that were launched nearly fifty years ago. It was in the mid-1960s that one of America’s oddest social movements, the hippies, suddenly appeared.”

From LA Progressive 

“The New Culture Forum’s brand new publication “The Long March Through The Institutions: How the Left Won the Culture War” may be downloaded free of charge from our website:The New Culture Forum." 

Source:New Culture Forum- talking about Liberals won the Cultural War.

From The New Culture Forum 

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 (let’s 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.

Hippies knew 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) Thank God that was before my time. Hippies / Liberals, we’re 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 these cultural changes 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 too. 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.

Alison Martino: James Dean Mysteries & Scandals

Source:Alison Martino- Rebel Without a Cause.

Source:The Daily Review

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.