I don't know of another actress other than maybe Lana Turner, (speaking of drama queens) who lived her real-life as close to many characters she played on the big screen than Ava Gardner. She was a real-life drama queen and I don't mean that in a negative sense. But nothing was ever boring with her. Starting with her gorgeous baby-faced adorable looks. Very similar to Elizabeth Taylor and her great voice as well. Also similar to Liz Taylor. Her beautiful black hair, again Liz Taylor. And that she was this incredible real-life character with a great sense of humor and the ability to play almost anyone on the big screen. With the best and most interesting character that she ever played being the one and only Ava Gardner. Perhaps the prettiest and most interesting drama queen of all-time.
You put Ava in soap operas in the 1950s when they came out on TV and she would've been the queen of soap. Susan Luci, would've had nothing on Ava. Because Ava was almost not acting when she was playing very dramatic roles especially women with quick-witted sense of humors. She was just playing herself, this beautiful, adorable, sexy, intelligent brunette, who was also one hell of a great actress. She lived her personal life the way the played many roles in the movies. A women who always did things her way, (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) who wasn't alive, but always living life and enjoying every moment of it that she possibly could. Perhaps why she and Frank didn't work out, because he might have been too much and too much fun for him.
And the other thing that she had in common with Liz Taylor, is that they both lived life to be alive. Not simply to try to get through it like you're in prison, or serving in combat and simply trying to survive. She was free as a squirrel who lived her whole life the only way she knew how to, which was to have as much fun as she possibly could. And she paid a heavy price for that with the alcoholism and having several different male relationships that never worked out. But it was her life to live, to enjoy and make mistakes with. Not someone else's to live for her, or for her to live in someone's else's image of what kind of life she should have. Which takes a lot of guts to literally be that free in life and that I have a lot of respect for her.
Campaign 2016, will be another opportunity for Americans to sober up and make a big decision by sending the escaped mental patients back home to their institutions, or retaking control of the prison and putting the administration back in charge of the prison, or whatever analogy you want to use, or stick with the status-quo. Where you have people who don’t believe in government even as much as new Speaker Paul Ryan might be an optimistic pragmatist, who don’t believe in government. Letting the Tea Party run the House of Representatives, is like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar. The alcoholic would never make any money, because he never has anything left to sell, because he always drinks everything. Or putting a serial rapist who hasn’t been convicted yet in charge of a rape counseling group. Or a sexual harassment class. It makes no sense, because you end up pointing your gun at your own two feet instead of your enemy.
I think in a normal election year with normal American voters, the Democrats should win back the House. Having said that I might as well hope for the elimination of world poverty. We don’t have a normal electorate right now and instead have a country that pissed off at everyone who is not them and who is doing better than them. Instead of looking at why government doesn’t work and why government can’t meet its basic needs and responsibilities for the country. Because you have one party who now controls both chambers of Congress and not just the House, who don’t believe in government. Who hate President Barack Obama so much, that they rather try to make him look worst than they do. Assuming that is even possible when President Obama is in the fifties and the Republican Congress is like at ten-percent. Depending on if everyone you ask in your poll is both sane and sober.
That is just the House elections. The Senate, should go Democratic just because it’s a presidential election year. Where we’ll have huge Democratic turnouts with African and Latin-Americans perhaps turning out in record numbers with new voters coming out. With so many new women and not just Caucasian women voting for Hillary Clinton. The most likely Democratic nominee for president. And then throw in that 24-34 Senate seats that will be up for reelection in 2016 will be Republican. Democrats other than Nevada, don’t have any real vulnerable members up and vulnerable open seats other than Nevada. Also a lot of those Republican seats that are up like Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, are all states that voted Democrat for president in 2008 and 2012 and voted Democrat in huge numbers. So Senate Democrats, won’t need a sane sober electorate to win back the Senate. They just need to get their own voters out and for the Democratic presidential nominee to do fairly well.
As far as the presidential election. Hillary Clinton against who? After perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire and Vermont, where does Bernie Sanders have any shot at beating Hillary? Martin O’Malley, my preferred candidate, is still in single-digits and not raising any money. And then go to the Republicans who go by the campaign slogan, “vote for us if you hate government!” In other words vote for people who don’t believe in government to govern. Unless you’re an Anarchist, why would you take that seriously. And that is before I get into Donald Trump and Ben Carson. If the Republican campaign was mostly about Marco Rubio, who should be the future of the GOP and John Kasich, who by far is the most qualified Republican presidential candidate, if not candidate period for president, I might be worried. Because not leading a non-suicidal Republican Party, Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich, could both give Hillary a long run for her money.
Predicting presidential elections twelve months in advance, is probably about as smart as going bike-riding without a seat, or with only one tire. How far you think you would get? But doing stuff that is fun is not always smart. Just ask people who get drunk every weekend, if not more often and ask them how they feel the next morning and how much work do they lose from doing that. But its fun and they feel its worth it. I think we already have a pretty good idea what the 2016 presidential election will look like. And unless the Republican Party is cleared sane between now and in the next twelve months and nominate someone like Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, they have nobody who can beat Hillary next year. Unless she starts shooting her own two feet off to see how it feels to be a Republican right now. 2016, leans Democratic at the presidential level and for Senate. And we’ll see what if anything changes within the next year.
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.
I like Bob Newhart’s line about gays and straights implying at least that we’re both funny and we just make fun of each other. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that gay men especially, because lesbians tend not to be as sensitive, (ha ha) could make all the butch masculine straight-men jokes all they want and straight men would probably just laugh at them. Because we know ourselves and know so many straight men and how we tend to act . But if you make a feminine gay man joke and make fun of a queen, you’re automatically viewed as a bigot and homophobe by the Illiberal-Left Political Correctness Police. Even if you believe that gays, men and women, should have the same rights and responsibilities under law as straights, male or female. And that you’re even friends with gay men and are friendly with lesbians.
I mean that is the whole point, right. When you make fun of someone or groups of people and that is all you’re doing and you’re not throwing slurs and bigoted insults and that sort of thing, not that bigots don’t have a right to their sense of humor as well, that is all you’re doing. You’re jabbing at characteristics and flaws of people and groups. When you make a gay man joke, or do an impression, you’re not saying that all gay men are feminine and sound like women and walk like runway models and the whole deal. You’re just making fun of queens who are gay men with feminine characteristics. Like being oversensitive and not crazy about people knowing who they are.
If comedians can’t make of people, they might as well become car insurance salesman. (And saleswomen to politically correct) Because that is what life would be like for a comedian who isn’t allowed to make fun of people. Either through their writing, or performances. One dreary day after another where you’re literally counting how many times someone slammed the door in your face. After you told someone about the great car insurance deal you could give them on their Ford Escort. Except that you’re not allowed to make fun of it, because you’ll be accused of being bigoted towards door slammers. Comedy and humor, is exactly that. Not exactly a true story, but someone making fun of something, or someone who has done something. Not to be taken seriously and by the way, great comedians generally have a self-deprecating sense of humor. So how about everyone else as well.
To add to Lawrence Wittner’s list of American Democratic Socialists. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, that includes Senator Bernie Sanders and sixty or so Representatives in the House. The Congressional Black Caucus, eighty or more members in the House. A lot of the CBC are also part of the CPC. It is not that Democratic Socialists are not common in America and that democratic socialism doesn’t have a real movement. It’s that Democratic Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics that way. They prefer to be called Progressives, or what pisses me off as a Liberal, they go by Liberal. Not that I hate democratic socialism, but as a Liberal, I believe there is a real limit to what government can do for people. And I would like to see more public services for moving people off of public assistance, instead of leaving them dependent on them.
Go to the entire MSNBC talk lineup and tell me who over there if anyone, other than Chris Matthews, disagrees with Bernie Sanders on anything? If anything, MSNBC is to the left of Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Especially as it relates to issues of free speech, middle class tax hikes. And are to the right of them at least in Ed Schultz’s case when it comes to marijuana legalization. Big Ed, is opposed to marijuana legalization. Who takes more of a progressive big government nanny state position on marijuana. But how about RT America and not just Thom Hartmann. How about Al-Jazeera. Again networks that are pretty Far-Left and tend to take a democratic socialist view on the issues. Who if anything are even further left than Senator Sanders.
But if cable talk is not enough for you, how about Salon, The Nation, The AlterNet, TruthOut, TruthDig, LA Progressive, Gar Alperovitz, Paul Krugman, who at the very least leans in a democratic socialist direction. As Bill Maher has said several times, it is not that there aren’t Socialists in America, because of course there are, but there’s an unwilling for Socialists to come out of the closet. (So to speak) Because for fear as being labeled as Marxists, or Un-American, losing employment opportunities and so-forth and so on. But of course democratic socialism has had a lot and I would argue proud history in America, going back to at least Eugene Debs and they’ve even had at least one President of the United States in Franklin Roosevelt. But what they’ve lacked is the courage to proud of their political ideology that they self-describe themselves for what they actually are. Democratic Socialists and they should defend who they are, not run way from it.
To point out about political correctness policies by Ben Carson who apparently wants to ban language on campus that he sees as Un-American, just points out the fact that political correctness fascism, (and that’s exactly what it is) is bipartisan. But no way does it defend the Far-Left from trying to ban criticism of Muslims and Islam in general. It just makes the sophomoric argument, “that we might do it. But so do they. We might be bad, but they suck worse.” Not exactly a crowd pleaser and inspirational argument that brings people to your side.
At best you might get people to decide on choosing the lesser of two evils. The problem with that is that you’re still choosing evil. Just a lesser evil, but still evil. “You want me to break your back, or do you want permanent brain damage?” Okay, you don’t like that. How about a choice between going blind, or going death? All right fine. How about I break your arm, or your leg, but I won’t break both?” Because those are the kinds of choices you have when picking between two evils. Fascism on the Right, or fascism on the Left. How about neither!
Political correctness fascism from either the Right or Left, still fascism. And try to say one is worst than the other, how about we not have that argument. Instead of arguing who was a worst dictator, Joe Stalin, or Adolph Hitler, how about we have an argument about who is the better president, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan. And just because one side does it when it comes to political correctness, doesn’t excuse the other side when they do it. It just means that we had anti-free speech radicals on both sides. Who’ll fight like hell for their right to free speech. As they try to crush the other side’s rights.
“Dad, I cheated on that test, but so did five other students.” That wouldn’t impress my father and imagine most fathers and probably most mothers as well. All that does it show you that cheating was a problem on that test. And when you point out examples of political correctness on the other side, it just points out that political correctness is a bipartisan problem. But it doesn’t excuse either side. Political correctness, is illiberal fascism, whether it comes from the Left or Right. Actually, all fascism is illiberal. Meaning not liberal. Which is why this blog constantly points out the importance of free speech. And all believers of free speech Right and Left, should always fight against fascism.
You want to know why America is the world champion is mass-incarceration and leads the world in prison inmates every year? I'll tell you anyway. Because we arrest people to doing consensual activities where no one is actually hurt. Narcotics, gambling, adult pornography, prostitution, are all illegal at least somewhere in America. And statists on the both the Left and Right, aren't looking to fix this problem, but actually make our nanny state even bigger. We're supposed to be a constitutional federal republic and liberal democracy. We are on paper, but for that to be real Americans have to have a certain degree of personal freedom and that even involves the freedom to be involved in personal activities that comes with a certain amount of personal risk. Especially when we're talking about consensual acts.
As far as Chris Hedges referring to prostitutes as slaves and prostitution as slavery. A slave is a person who is the legal property of another. Slavery, is the state of being the legal slave of someone else. Rape, is being forced to give non-consensual sex to another. Where you have no choice in the matter and someone is sexually forcing them self on you and you aren't able to stop it. Crimes, should be activities where innocent people are hurt by predators. Not to protect people from themselves by sending them to a horrible place that is actually worse for them than the activity that they were involved in that got them sent to jail and prison in the first place. Prostitution, is consensual sex. What makes it different from recreational sex is that there is a payment involved between two parties. Who agreed to be involved with each other in this activity.
So when you call prostitutes slaves and say they're being raped for selling sex and you call prostitution slavery, you're simply dead wrong. And I'm not going to editorialize and ponder whether you're ignorant, or dishonest, but you're wrong. Prostitution, is a bad dangerous business where people do get hurt. But so is tobacco, so is alcohol, so is gambling, so is football, so is auto racing, hopefully you get the picture by now. How big of a nanny state do you want in a liberal democracy and free society? How many people do you want in prison for being involved in dangerous activities where they never hurt anybody? Wouldn't you rather spend that money instead of things that improves people's lives and serves the public? Education, infrastructure, economic development, assisting people in poverty to actually move out of poverty, etc? We should tax and regulate dangerous consensual activities. Not make criminals out of people who simply engage in them.
