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.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Interview With Senator Bernie Sanders

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher talking to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The Daily Review

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

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

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

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

Bill Ayers: Socialism, Seriously!

Source:Bill Ayers.

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Bill Ayers (for once perhaps. Check Los Angeles for snow right now.) that Bernie Sanders should run as who is. Which is as a Socialist, a Democratic Socialist which is common in Europe, especially in Scandinavia. For a couple of reasons and not because I’m a Socialist myself, because I’m not. But for one politicians should run as who they are. That should going without saying, but if you’re familiar with American politics you that it doesn’t. But also Senator Sanders has a real audience out there. A democratic socialist base that doesn’t have the balls to call themselves what they really are, which are Democratic Socialists. Who are actually to the left of Bernie on some really key issues.

But two, America has been in decline economically really since 2000-01 and I’m not blaming anyone here, just the facts. Especially with the middle class with falling wages, a falling workforce, cost of living going up and I could go on an on. But that would just depress you and make you feel you’re back in 1979, or something. So Bernie has an audience and a limited amount of time to talk to these struggling Americans and tell them why big government socialism is good for them. Until they find out that all of these free government programs that the Senator is offering are not free at all. That Americans will probably have to pay more in payroll taxes in order to finance them. The, “I’m just going to put the costs of these programs on the backs of business’s idea.” Is going to fly as well as a plane without wings, or an engine. Even with middle class Americans who own, or run a business them self.

So of course Bernie Sanders should run as a Socialist just like a horse should run as a horse. Because that is who he is and Americans are tired of politicians trying to convince them that they are anything other than who they are. And a real person instead of a political robot would be a real fresh change of pace for the average American voter. And again Bernie even has an audience of dedicated voters who are, well dedicated to him. And think he’s, “like totally awesome, or whatever. And not only feel the Bern, but may now have sunburn as a result. But just because a politician runs as himself, which I’ll admit is real fresh in American politics, is no guarantee of getting a personal key to the White House.

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.

Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'Political Ideology- Government & Politics'

Source:Crash Course- talking about political ideology.

"So today Craig is going to look at political ideology in America. We're going to focus on liberals and conservatives and talk about the influencers of both of these viewpoints. Now, it's important to remember that political ideologies don't always perfectly correspond with political parties, and this correspondence becomes less and less likely over time. So, sure we can say that Democrats tend to be liberal and Republicans tend to be conservative, but we're not going to be talking about political parties in this episode. It's also important to note, that there are going to be a lot of generalizations here, as most peoples' ideologies fall on a spectrum, but we're going to try our best *crosses fingers* to summarize the most commonly held viewpoints for each of these positions as they are used pretty frequently in discussions of American politics."

Source:Crash Course 

This is what liberalism really is: "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. It was developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America.[1][2][3]

Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on classical economics, especially the economic ideas as espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] progress,[6] and utilitarianism." 

From Wikipedia 

This is what conservatism really is: "Conservatism in the United States is a political and social philosophy which characteristically prioritizes American traditions, republicanism, classical liberalism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to the states, referred to more simply as limited government and states' rights. Conservative and Christian media organizations along with American conservative figures are influential, and American conservatism is one of the majority political ideologies within the Republican Party.[1][2][3] On social issues, American conservatism typically supports Christian values,[4] moral absolutism,[5] traditional family values,[6] American exceptionalism,[7] and individualism,[8] while opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.[9] On economic issues it is generally pro-capitalism[10] and pro-business while opposing trade unions. On national issues it often advocates a strong national defense, gun rights, free trade,[11] and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by communism[12] and moral relativism.[13] Conservatives are substantially more likely than moderates and liberals to distrust science, particularly medical science, climate science, and evolution, and to believe in Creationism."  

From Wikipedia

This is what progressivism really is: "Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe.[2]

The early-20th century concept of progressivism emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization and the Second Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century. Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality; minimally regulated monopolistic corporations; and the intense and often violent conflict between laborers and economic elites, arguing that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]

The meaning of progressivism has varied over time and differs depending on perspective. Early-20th century progressivism included proponents of eugenics and the temperance movement, both of which were promoted in the name of public health and as initiatives toward that goal.[4][5][6][7][8] In modern politics, progressivism is generally considered part of the left-liberal tradition.[9][10][11][12][13] In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions." 

From Wikipedia

This is where I disagree with Craig Benzine: I'm not interested in what classical liberalism is, versus modern liberalism or conservatism is. I'm just interested in what liberalism and what I would at least call constitutional conservatism, for people who think that conservatism is about religious fundamentalism and fighting some nationalistic cultural war with everyone who doesn't share the cultural and religious values of people who are now called Christian Nationalists, who a couple years ago were called Christian-Conservatives. 

Liberalism and conservatism in their real (or classical, if you prefer) are both based on what's called classical liberalism, or what some Center-Right parties in Europe, like in Germany, call liberal conservatism. 

But in America Liberals are supposed to be antiestablishment, revolutionary, hippies. who want to transform America into some type of socialist state, who see freedom as dangerous and selfish. 

And in America Conservatives are supposed to be Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, fundamentalist, rednecks, who are anti-women and minority and who believe Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men should be running the country, with everyone else being servants. 

But in the rest of the developed world, Liberals and Conservatives are Center-Right. Not Far-Left and Far-Right, as they look in America. 

The Empire Files: Abby Martin- America's Unofficial Religion: The War on an Idea

Source:The Empire Files-

Source:The New Democrat 

Again, it depends on are you talking about democratic socialism, which is a very mainstream political philosophy in most of the developed world and gaining strength in America, or are you talking about Marxism. Which is complete state-control of the economy and society as general. Where the central state tells people what they can and can't do. Where they can work, where they can live and so-forth. What the right-wing in America has been successful at really since the 1930s is point most Socialists as Marxists, even most Socialists tend to be democratic and even Democratic. Where the Democratic Party has had a long history going back to the 1930s, or longer of having at least an unofficial wing of Democratic Socialists in the party who prefer to be called Progressives.

Democratic socialism, is not anti-capitalist and anti-private enterprise. A Democratic Socialist State if anything will use capitalism and private enterprise to fund their welfare state. To see that everyone has social insurance that they can turn to when they need it, but also to provide the basic services that Democratic Socialists don't trust the private sector to provide. Education, health care, health insurance, retirement, childcare, to use as examples. While the private sector would be left with most of the rest of the economy, short of national security, foreign policy, law enforcement, the judiciary, etc. In a social democracy, you tend to have big centralized government's, if not a unitarian state, with most of the governmental power being left with the national capital. But where the people would be free to live their own lives with basic individual rights. Including not having to live in poverty.

When I think of socialism, I think of Europe, especially Scandinavia and Britain and to a certain extent Canada. These are all countries that are all energy independent by the way. At least Canada, Britain and Scandinavia, so they can afford to be very socialist with their government's and economies. And when I think of highly statist and authoritarian third-world countries, I think of Marxists and Marxism. North Korea and Syria, great examples of that. And then you have highly developing and growing countries that use to be completely Marxist states both politically and economically that now have hybrid systems. Where they have private enterprise economies, but Marxist political systems. China, obviously, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Cuba would be another one. But there now two socialist factions in the world. The democratic faction being the largest and most successful.
Source:The Empire Files

Video Detective: The Seduction Of Joe Tynan (1979) Starring Alan Alda & Meryl Streep

Source:The Video Detective- Meryl Streep & Alan Alda.

Source:The Daily Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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