Iconic: Governor George C. Wallace- 'Talking About His Ideas About Communism'

Source:Iconic- Governor George C. Wallace (Democrat, Alabama) perhaps in 1965. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"George Wallace talking about his ideas on Communism" 

From Iconic

This was a common tactic the right-wing (Far-Right, actually ) in the 1960s to blame the civil rights movement, as well as the anti-Vietnam war movement on Communists. Arguing that Communists from Russia or some other Communist state were infiltrating protestors and demonstrators during this period. 

Dr. Martin L. King, was accused by the Far-Right back then of being both a Communist and Socialist. And of course none of these rightists actually bothered to offer any evidence supporting their claims, but when you're a demagogue like George Wallace or anyone else, evidence is the last thing that you look at, because evidence and facts tend to get in the way of your partisan arguments, because facts and evidence tend to contradict you.

A&E: Rodeo Girls- A Cowgirl Reality Show

Source:Share TV- The cast of A&E's Rodeo Girls. 

Source:The Action Blog 

"Darcy, Jessica, Megan, Marvel and Barb compete male-dominated rodeo events, they are barrel racers, charging their steeds around barrels. Should they knock any over, five seconds are added to their time. The first episode has the ladies in Arizona, to compete in a pool of 120 racers for prize money that will only go to the best 12 racers." 

From Share TV

"Jealousy rears its head when Barb beats Darcy and takes first place in a barrel race."

Source:A&E - Cowgirl Barb West 

From A&E

Maybe I should say reality show in quotes since what's called reality TV is not very real at all. We all know now that the cast members are encouraged to act a certain and act out. Instead of a film crew following people around to see what they're really like in real-life. But for what's called reality TV in Hollywood and New York, Rodeo Girls would qualify as reality TV that's about cowgirl and professional female rodeo cowgirls and watching them compete around the country and what life is like for them and they're not competing.

Source:TDS- The cast of A&E's Rodeo Girls 

Rodeo Girls for me, is like a soap opera but perhaps without a script. I'm sure the cast members are encouraged to act a certain and to even act out, but they're not told what to say. In a TV soap opera that has writers and actors, etc each cast members are given a script and told what to say. Rodeo Girls, is like a soap opera, but without a script. It has all the tension and competitiveness, backstabbing that would see on General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, The Young and The Restless, whatever soap you want to use as an example, but the show is unscripted. But the cast is strategically picked out to create tension and entertainment on the show. To put people in place who perhaps don't even respect each other, let alone like each other and they're not only competing with each other, but have to interact with each other on the show.

The real drama on this show is between Darcy Lapier ( perhaps the best looking cowgirl in the world, fake or otherwise ) and the rest of the cowgirls the show. Darcy Lapier, is essentially know for being a one-time actress who I guess never got her acting career going in the 1980s, but was able to get involved with some high profiled men in Hollywood and in business. She was married briefly to Jean Van-Damme, businessmen Ron Rice and Mark Hughes, She's essentially made her career and living by marrying up and being married to successful men and then being able to live off of them while married and then divorced. Gold digger, would probably be an accurate way to describe Darcy Lapier. A very beautiful, hot even, very sexy, very adorable woman, but who has never had much of a career of her own.

And that is where the tension is between Darcy and the other rodeo girls on the show like Barb West who are real rodeo and cowgirls in real-life, who are professionals, who don't have their ex-husbands alimony or some trust fund to live off of and have to do well in this business in order to support themselves. They don't see Darcy as one of them or even as a real cowgirl and Darcy is a bit of a verbal punching bag for them and she sees herself as better than them, because she's not a working stiff and lives the life of a reality TV, Hollywood celebrity traveling around in limos and and her own jet. Who has now decided that she wants a career for herself and is struggling to make it as a professional cowgirl.

Claudia Christian: On Making It In Hollywood

Source:Quote Parrot- A very candid Claudia Christian. 

Source:The Daily Review

"What was your favorite Claudia Christian quote? 'Like' and leave a comment below, then jump over to The Quote Tank and make a list of your favorites, so you'll never forget!"

Source:Quote Tank- Life is worth working for. 

From Quote Tank

Not all actors and actresses, but a lot of them and apparently Claudia Christian is a perfect example of this, but before they become stars they have bills to pay and have to support themselves. Especially if they already have kids and their spouse isn't rich yet either. Just because you haven't heard of a certain actor because become stars later in their careers, doesn't mean they just suddenly appear out of nowhere or were sent down form Planet Venus or some other planet to become a star in Hollywood.

A lot of actors before they became stars were already veteran actors and actresses. Dennis Haysbert, who played the President on 24, is a perfect example of that. He was already in his mid 40s when he got that role, but had already had big acting credits like appearing in Heat in 1995. George Clooney, was 33 when he became a star on ER, but had already been acting and supporting himself for 10 years before that.

And because all actors and actresses have to work to support themselves even if they're not stars yet, they have to go where the money is and where they can get roles. Even if that means doing movies that a few years down the line after they've already made it look ridiculous to them. Thomas Howell, who became a star in the movie The Outsiders, has a laundry list of b-movies on his resume, because those were the only parts he could get. Acting on Impulse, from 1993 which is actually a pretty good movie, but almost no one has ever heard of it.

So actors and actresses have to keep working at least until they become stars and have some financial security. 30 years ago or so almost ten years before he got the part on ER and was still on The Facts of Life, George Clooney was in a movie called something like The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Flies. If you haven't heard of that movie, you're on a long waisting list of people who want to get into an overcrowded club of people who've also have never heard of that movie. But these are the roles that let's say developing actors and actresses and prices that these people will pay to become a star in Hollywood and never have to worry about getting work again and be able to get quality roles in movies and on TV.

As far as Claudia Christian's career, she's been acting since 1984, but didn't didn't get the Babylon Five role until 1996 which made her a star in Hollywood. She made guest appearances on A-Team back in the mid 80s, appeared on the soap opera Dallas during that period, The Hidden in 1987, The Chase in 1994, which were al great roles for her, but also on that same resume before Babylon, Maniac Cop 2, Hexed, and a lot of other b if not c-movies that almost no one has even heard of, but kept her busy and working in Hollywood and gave major directors and producers a chance to see her so when a great part came around for her they would know about her and she would be ready for it. B-movies and b-roles are the prices that people pay to make it in Hollywood and Claudia Christian is just one example of that.

Andy Hailey: ‘As A Progressive, Am I Too Extreme?’

Source:Slide Player- The Progressive Era in America. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of economic injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their belief that only the wealthy deserve government aid?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of social injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their denial of sexual diversity?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of racial injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their arrogant belief in white supremacy?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of environmental injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their desire for the end times or getting filthy rich in case they are not among the chosen?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect all living and breathing citizens from the economic, social, racial, and environmental injustices committed by man-made, heartless, and greedy entities with their immoral, excessive, power and pursuit of profit without regard to harming citizens?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their freedoms to choose, like voting and medical procedures, are maximized?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their abilities, like critical thinking, are maximized?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from medical bankruptcy caused by death panels protecting health insurance profits?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from sacrifice in never-ending wars for corporate enrichment?

Am I too extreme to want today’s version of FDR’s second bill of rights written into law?”

From Andy Hailey 

"Progressivism is a way of thinking that holds that it is possible through political action for human societies to improve over time. As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization.[1] Adherents to this way of thinking hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society.[2]

Early-20th century progressivism included support for compulsory sterilization, the temperance movement, American engagement in World War I, and the creation of and participation in the League of Nations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by economic inequality; inadequately regulated monopolistic corporations; and conflict between workers and elites, arguing that corrective measures were needed.[9]

In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism.[10][11][12][13][14]. 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 Andy Hailey piece, could’ve been written by Bernie Sanders today, George McGovern 30-50 years ago, Henry Wallace 70 years ago, David McReynolds or Eugene Debs ( multiple time Socialist Party nominees for president ) in McReynolds case 10, 20, 30 years ago. In Debs case 100 years ago. Socialists and socialism aren’t new to America. 

Socialism didn’t arrive in America when Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving in the House for 16 years before the Senate. He’s not the only Socialist in Congress and never has been. He’s just the only self-described Socialist in Congress, ( but not the only current Socialist in Congress ) and he’ll only have that title until the end of this Congress. In the next Congress, starting in January, we could see 10-20 new self-described Socialists in the House alone.

What’s new is that we’re now seeing Socialists coming out of the political closet and making public that they’re Socialists. Democratic Socialists in most cases, but if you look at Far-Left like ANTIFA, they’re proud self-described Communists. 

It’s not extreme to want a country or world where there’s no racism, poverty, selfishness, crime, violence, war, anything else that’s bad about the world. Overly romantic, overly idealistic you wouldn’t have much trouble making the case for that. 

But, anyone who lives in the real world (and just doesn't come down for a visit) has to deal with both good and bad. Things that are good about people and society and things that are bad. That’s called life and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to improve not only your own life, but the society around you. Overly romantic and idealistic sure, but there’s really nothing wrong with that so long as you keep at least one foot on Planet Earth and stay in touch with reality. As least in writing or texting, or email distance.

But, if you’re someone who believes in making the world better, the question is how you go about doing that. Now, if you’re an actual Progressive ( and not a closeted Socialist instead )  it’s not a question if you want to make the world better or not, but how to go about doing that. 

When I think of Progressives, I think of people who want to make the country or world better through government action. Not people who are looking to create a Planet Utopia where there’s no such thing as poverty, racism, or violence, but people who want to use public policy to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and create genuine, noticeable progress with public policy. Not people who are looking to outlaw everything they don’t personally like including personal wealth. Or create a central government so big that personal decision-making and individualism become extinct. But people who want to improve the lives of their fellow people through public policy.

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists including Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, and even Communists tend to all get linked into the same political faction as if they’re all the same people with 6 different labels. When the fact is Liberals just by themselves are different from the other factions: 

For example an actual Liberal such as myself believes in liberal democracy. Communists, don’t believe in democracy at all especially liberal democracy. 

Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats believe in democratic socialism and social democracy. 

Progressives in the actual sense, are the most interesting in all of these political factions, because they’re the least ideological and most pragmatic of all these groups. They believe in liberal democracy, but they also believe in conservative values like property rights, the rule of law, and other values like that.

Progressives, are people who believe in progress through government action, but limited government action. They’re not looking to create a government that is so big that it essentially takes over the society and is able to manage people’s personal as well as economic affairs for them. 

Progressives, are people who believe in freedom, but that it should be for everyone and not just for people who are born to wealth or have a certain ethnic or racial background. And want to use government to improve the lives of people who are struggling so they can have the same freedom as people who are already doing well in society. These are the main differences between a Progressive and a Socialist of any background. Which is Progressives, believe in progress through limited government,. Socialists, don’t believe in limited government and base their ideology around a big central government and what it can do for the people.

A&E: American Hoggers- Krystal Campbell & Lea Penick: 'Are Angry About Tom Using a Gun'

Source:Christian Cravens- Lea Penick and Krystal Campbell on American Hoggers. 

Source:The Action Blog

From Wikipedia 

"In this scene from the episode Swamped, Krystal and Lea have a talk with Tom after he shoots a hog without warning them."

Source:A&E- Krystal Campbell on American Hoggers. 

 

From A&E

I got into American Hoggers myself accidentally I guess in the spring of 2013 when I was home on a Sunday and flipping around on the tube. And I saw these two very young, beautiful, and very cute women ( Krystal Campbell and Lea Penick ) doing what I guess would be traditionally male oriented work ( at least straight male ) not just working on a ranch, but doing the actual hunting themselves. Which is what they do for a living hunting feral hogs that represent a real threat to the farm and ranch land in Central Texas and got into this show very quickly because of these two women and what they do on this show and then Katie Ball comes on who is hired by Krystal's father ( Jerry Campbell ) to be another hunter for him and his ranch. Who is even cuter than Krystal and Lea.

As far as this particular show: I'm not a hunter at all not even an amateur hunter and certainly can't speak as an expert to what they were doing here, but I think the ladies have a point here. Shooting hogs with no warning while they're people around and not knowing exactly who you're shooting at, looks to me at least like trying to land a 747 blindfolded with your eyes close during a Chicago blizzard.

I understand all about self-survival and it's either the hog or me, the hog is going down, but firing into bushes like that and not knowing if they're actual humans there, is literally shooting in the dark and hoping for the best. I could just imagine Tom's excuse here if he had shot Krystal or Lea by accident and it might sound something like this: "Hey, I was shooting at the hog, not you. At least I didn't get hurt." You can easily see why the ladies would be angry here. 

Susan Hayward: The Working Girl

Source:AZ Quotes- Susan Hayward, on reaching the mountaintop in Hollywood. 

Source:The Daily Review

"What was your favorite Susan Hayward quote? 'Like' and leave a comment below, then jump over to:Quote Tank  and make a list of your favorites, so you'll never forget!"

Source:Quote Tank- One of Susan Hayward's movies 

From Quote Tank

There are a lot of rags to riches success stories in America which is one thing that makes America great as well as exceptional. America tends to get stereotyped as a rich country that's dominated by rich people who control so much of the country's wealth and that all Americans are rich. And if you're from a third world country and grew up poor before you came to America, you might believe that as well at least before you get to America.

But the fact is most Americans aren't wealthy. Most of us aren't poor either, but a lot of come from either middle class or working class families which is the overwhelming majority of Americans. Americans who aren't poor or who are hungry, but struggle to survive, work hard, to pay their bills. Can't afford to send their kids to college which means their kids have to work through college or get student loans, or both especially if they're not on scholarship.

Susan Hayward growing up in New York City in the 1920s and 30s didn't even have it that great. She came literally from nothing where her parents couldn't afford to feed all of their kids at the same time. Sometimes couldn't afford to even do laundry, couldn't replace shoes and other clothing that were falling apart. What Susan Hayward did have going for her growing up and as a very young woman was that she hated poverty and wanted to escape it. As well as a talent and desire to succeed that would allow to her live well for the rest of her life.

When I think of Susan Hayward, I think of President Richard Nixon and his background growing in rural and poor California in the 1920s when a lot of America was actually doing very well economically, but where most of that economic wealth was in big cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, and other big cities not in rural California hundreds of miles out of Los Angeles.

I think of President Nixon giving his farewell address where he says: "Only when you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." President Richard Nixon from August, 1974 the day he left the White House after resigning the presidency, because of is involvement in the Watergate coverup.

Susan Hayward, was able to reach the mountaintop in Hollywood and to go down as not just one of the greatest actresses in her generation, but who ever worked in Hollywood because she grew up in the deepest valley in America. And to know what it was like to live on the bottom not knowing where your next meal was coming from and would you even have a home the next month.

Not that I would recommend poverty to anyone, but when you have nothing is does teach you a few positive things like how important hard work and success are and what it means to earn what you get. As well as always knowing at least in the back of your head what it's like to be poor and to know that you never want to live that way again.

Susan Hayward, is a great rags to riches story who came from nothing to become one of the best actresses that America have ever known and a story that we should all celebrate.

Vanity Fair: S.E. Cupp: 'The Conservative Coma'

Source:Vanity Fair- Take America back to the 1950s?

Source:The New Democrat

When I think of the Grand Ole Party ( and saying that with a straight face anymore is getting very difficult ) I think of a Conservative Republican Party that was hawkish when it came to not just Communists and communism, but authoritarians and authoritarianism in general. That actually believed deficits matter. ( Which night sound crazy in the Trumpian Republican Party today ) That actually believed not only in entitlement reform, but that it was necessary. That if Republicans as a party are going to believe in and support programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that they should all be on sound fiscal footing and not blow up the deficit.

It was a party that believed that race, ethnicity, and gender didn't matter. Which why it supported the civil rights laws of the 1960s while opposing affirmative action in the 1970s, because the GOP believed that people shouldn't be promoted, demoted, empowered or denied simply because of their race, ethnicity or religion. A party that not only believed in immigration, but that anyone regardless of what country or region of the world, regardless of their race or ethnicity should be allowed to come to America legally if they work hard and contribute to America and obey our laws.

A party that was strong on defense, but didn't believe America shouldn't try to police the world and try force our values on other countries and tell them this is how they should govern themselves. For the most part this Republican value is still in place with the Neoconservatives thanks to the Iraq War losing almost all influence on Republican foreign and national security policy. A party that still believed in limited government even with the Christian-Right becoming a force in the party, but that still believed in that Barry Goldwater line that said he didn't want big government in our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, or classrooms.

That was the Republican Party that I grew up. I come from a Democratic family, but that's what the Republican Party use to be and what the Republican Party was when I grew up. And expect for the national debt and deficits, President Ronald Reagan believed in most if not all of those values. He did have his own big government issues with the national debt, deficits, and his expansion of the War on Drugs in the 1980s, but basically he represented and lead what was the Grand Ole Party very well in the 1980s. This is not the Republican Party today and I when I think of RINOS,  ( Republicans in name only ) I believe in so-called Republicans who don't even really believe in the concept of a republic and instead want to create a fundamentalist Christian society where their religious values are not only dominant, but become official government policy.

The GOP is not dead. You still have the S.E. Cupp's of the world, as well as Republicans like Margaret Hoover, Amanda Carpenter, Tara Setmeyer, Bill Kristol, and a few others at CNN. They're still some GOP Republicans in Congress like outgoing Senator's Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan, incoming Senator Mitt Romney once he takes his Senate seat in the next Congress. But the Republican Party today is now the Donald Trump Nationalist Party. That puts groups of Americans against each other and no longer preaches about America being the city on a shining hill. And instead preaches that, "you're either with us or against us." Meaning you either support President Donald Trump, or you're Un-American and a RINO.

The Republican or Nationalist or RINO Party ( depending on how you want to label the modern Republican Party ) is now the party that represents the 1950s that was reborn in this century, but come from the 1950s culturally and ideologically. Where women's place in the world is at home, African-Americans and other non-Anglo-Saxons are second-class citizens if citizens at all. Gays are either locked in the closet, or locked in prison or some mental institution.

Today's so-called Republican party is really now an anti-conservative party, because they now believe character and morality doesn't matter just as long as you either serve, back, or defend President Donald Trump and the people who support the President. And that instead of defending and supporting the status quo and and conserving our individual rights which is what Conservatives are supposed to support, they now want to blow up the system and establishment and create a society and establishment that supports them and what they being the Trump Nationalist movement supports and believes in.

If you read Joshua Green's The Devil's Bargain, he reports and argues that the Republican Party Leadership and base got in bed with Donald Trump in 2015-16, because even though they were aware of all of Donald Trump's faults when it came to his lack of character and civility, that if he became President with a Republican Congress and Judiciary that they would get from a President Trump the things that they've been fighting for and wanted ever since Barack Obama became President. Things like deregulation, tax cuts, judicial appointments, a larger defense budget, etc. And that every time President Trump would do something that's unconventional ( to be kind ) or irresponsible, reckless, anti-conservative like appeasing dictators, they would just chalk it up to Donald Trump not being a conventional politician and new to Washington. Which is exactly what' we've seen the last two years with Donald Trump as President.

The GOP is not dead, but they're not unfortunately now a small faction of the Republican Party. The never-trumpers are what left of the Grand Ole Party. They're the Republicans ( not RINOS ) who believe that deficits and the national debt actually do matter, expect for perhaps Bill Kristol who is a Neoconservative. They don't just support entitlement reform, but believe it's necessary. They support legal immigration and believe it benefits the country and aren't worried about America losing it's European culture because they don't believe one race or ethnicity is superior to any other. They by enlarge don't want big government in our economic or personal affairs. I've argued for a while now that the Republican Party is no longer a conservative party, but  party with a conservative faction and the Donald Trump experiment and his movement make that argument for me perfectly.

Source:CNN: State of The Union- S.E. Cupp: Conservative Movement is in a Coma - CNN political analyst S.E. Cupp 

Chelsea Bain: Live and In Concert

Source: Chelsea Bain Facebook.

Source:The Action Blog

Chelsea Bain, is one of the cutest and sexiest country music performer performing and around today. Also one of the most beautiful and reminds me a lot of Miranda Lambert as far as her style of music  mixing in classic rock with her country sound. Mustang Sally, is obviously referring to the Ford Mustang and cars like that along with NASCAR racing is very popular with country culture with Americans who live in rural America, as well as Americans who live just outside of rural America. Who don't live in major cities or metros, but don't live in farmland either and kind of between a major city and in rural country where you won't see a city with even 50,000 people for hundreds of miles.

Source: Chelsea Bain Facebook

Ohio, is a state that has major cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, but they also have a lot of small towns in-between that aren't in the country, but are small industry, blue-collar, factory towns and towns like this are the heart of the Donald Trump base, but also the heart as well as rural America for country music. And these are towns where NASCAR will be very popular and where country music is very popular and where someone like a Chelsea Bain will be very popular and would perform there.

Source:Contact Music- Chelsea Bain in concert 

I'm not an expert on Chelsea Bain, but I love country girls and she's one of the best. I love the way they look, move, have this to be frank no bullshit mentality about them and don't take anything from anyone and are very honest with their music and use to express how they feel and how they're doing in life. I'm not a fan of country music, especially when it's pure country music, but when it's mixed with classic rock and blues or when it's just classic rock and blues, but from a country person standpoint and how they look at the world, you have a very good sound. And that is what you get from Chelsea Bain as well as her beautiful, adorable, and sexy appearance.

Vanity Fair: How NYC's Richest Socialites Were Scammed By Anna Delvey

Source:Vanity Fair- Great question!

Source:The Daily Review

If you're familiar with The Billionaire Boys Club that was lead by Joe Hunt in the early and mid 1980s that was based on Los Angeles, the Anna Delvey story should sound familiar. Except that Anna Delvey was not an investor not even a fake investor like the BBC and Delvey hasn't murdered and spending the rest of her life in prison. What's she's apparently guilty of is scamming rich New Yorkers out of their money. Looks like she was supporting herself by just hanging out and partying with rich New Yorkers. With not a real job or income of her own.

Source:The Cut- Anna Delvey 

What she does have in common with Joe Hunt and the BBC is this need to be seen with what's known as the beautiful people. Very attractive, sexy successful, hip yuppies in New York who have the best of everything when it comes to material. The best looking and most expensive clothing, best homes, cars, go to the best restaurants, hang out and party with the most popular people, as is she's part of this crowd and his also a very successful yuppie in New York as well. When the fact the only thing she has in common with these people is a need to be seen living this lifestyle with these people. But someone on her own would struggle to pay for gas in her car and pay for a motel room at the Motel Six or some other place. Perhaps Bob's Motel and Diner in New Brunswick, New Jersey or whatever the location.

Source:The Cut- Anna Delvey on the right and a friend? 

The main problem that Ann Delvey had is that she had first class expensive taste, but with an income that couldn't even pay for a coach seat. The way she paid for her first class lifestyle was by convincing some I guess some seriously gullible New Yorkers that she was also very successful and wealthy on her own. Perhaps these people believe in Santa Clause as well and not sure about who murdered President John Kennedy. You would think people for their educational and professional backgrounds, would be smart enough to not get fooled by someone like this. And just see her as a wannabe celebrity party girl, groupie ( to use another term ) and just blow her off, but that didn't happen here.
Source:Vanity Fair

Mao Zedong: Chinese Communism

Source:Five Prime- Chinese Communist Leader Mao Zedong. 

Source:The New Democrat

"In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong Thought is defined in the CPC's Constitution as "Marxism–Leninism applied in a Chinese context", synthesized by Mao and China's "first-generation leaders". It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. Maoism provided the CPC's first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed "socialist construction".

"While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated "imperialism and feudalism" and created a "New China" by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party's Constitution as Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

From Wikipedia 

“In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong Thought is defined in the CPC’s Constitution as “Marxism–Leninism applied in a Chinese context”, synthesized by Mao and China’s “first-generation leaders”. It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. Maoism provided the CPC’s first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed “socialist construction”.

While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated “imperialism and feudalism” and created a “New China” by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party’s Constitution as Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

Source:Crash Course- talking about Chinese communism.

From Crash Course

North Korea ( or as I call them the Communist Republic of Korea ) is really the last standing among the pure communist states around the world now. They’re the only communist state where everything and all the power in the country is centralized with the Communist Party and central government. The People’s Republic of China, has had a functioning hybrid capitalist economic for about 40 years now, while still maintaining some state-owned industries and they still qualify as a communist state because of their not just lack of free speech and a free press, but they still don’t have free speech or any free press.

The Chinese Communist State, still owns and operates all the domestic media in the country. And of course opposition parties to the Communist Party are still outlawed. But even personal freedom with people being able to move freely around the country and make their own basic personal and even economic decisions for themselves in the country and being able to travel abroad, is on the rise and has been growing in China since they’ve moved in a capitalist first world direction economically and culturally the last 35-40 years.

Mao Zedong, is one of the last of the pure Communists as someone who believed int total state-control of the society and not just the economy to work on behalf of the people so no one would be rich or poor. This is what Communists and Socialists are talking about when they say they want a classless society where no one is rich or poor. And they believe you achieve that by putting the central state in control of all the economic resources of the country. And that everyone would be taken care of as long as they follow the communist rules of society. Meaning you don’t disobey the communist regime and speak out against it or be politically active against it. 

Mad Cap: LAMFF- 'Live To Ride, Ride to Lunch! With Tricia Helfer and Katee Sackhoff'

Source:Mad Cap- Katee Sackhoff and Tricia Helfer, Live To Ride. 

Source:The Action Blog

"The AMAZING biker / actor / film making duo Tricia Helfer and Katee Sackhoff are going to ride to lunch WITH YOU - well, It could be you, if you win the online charity auction.  Proceeds to benefit Riders For Health! Tickets for the fest available online at eventbrite - link within the video. Start bidding now!"

From Mad Cap

Just on a personal note: Tricia Helfer has an adorable smile and voice. She could probably make weather reports sound interesting if the ever wanted to do that and make weather reports suddenly hit TV in America with millions of guys rushing home to see the 6 o'clock news just so they can see and hear her weather reporters. And Katee Sackhoff, is obviously adorable as well which makes them a very attractive duo on their worst days.

Source: LAMO To Film Fest- Katee Sackhoff and Tricia Helfer, Live To Ride 

Tricia Helfer and Kate Sackhoff, are longtime friends and go back to the early or mid 2000s when Katee was probably just breaking into Hollywood and they did Battlestar Galactica together which was the remake of the sci-fi show from the late 1970s and they're obviously good friends. Would've been nice to see Tricia on Longmire at least as guest star, but I guess that never happened. They're not just good friends, but very attractive good friends who like motorbikes. And they put this charity to where they ride their bikes for charity and ride them across the country. Similar to the Easy Rider movie from 1969 with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper, but in real-life and for charity.

Source: Black Book- Live To Ride, with Katee Sackhoff and Tricia Helfer 

You're going to have a hard time finding guys who don't like biker chicks, especially when they're also gorgeous, sexy, fairly young, who are also this cute because they just look like they're meant to be on bikes with their long beautiful and in many cases especially with Katee Sackhoff very strong legs where you wouldn't want to get into an ass kicking contest with her because you wouldn't be able to sit down or go to sleep for weeks after the contest. Biker women are just very sexy. tend to be beautiful and look so sexy with their legs wrapped around a motorcycle with their tight butts on the seat. Katee Sackhoff, was born to ride motorcycles and this looks like the perfect event for her.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ann-Margret (1978)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Swedish Goddess Ann-Margret on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in 1978.

Source:The Daily Review 

"JOHNNY CARSON INTERVIEW ANN MARGRET Jun 16 1978"

From Missy Logo

Just to talk about Ann-Margret, she was so adorable and that really includes everything about her, but in this case especially it was her voice that caught my attention. She has this very sweet soft voice that reminds me a lot of Elizabeth Taylor as far as how she speaks to people. Which I'm sure was driving Johnny Carson crazy ( at least inside ) with him thinking something like she's too cute to also be this sexy. But that is Ann-Margret who is this very sweet, adorable, soft, and yet sexy and gorgeous woman. Very similar to Raquel Welch or Rita Hayworth from a previous era.

As far as The Cheap Detective, it could've been called The Cheap Movie as well. Not a great movie, but with a great cast including Ann-Margret, but Louise Fletcher, Stockard Channing, ( talking about beautiful, adorable women ) Peter Falk who is the star of the movie and someone who if anything might have been even funnier than Johnny Carson, even though they would've made a great contest. It's a pretty funny movie similar to Columbo as far as the humor and funny people in it, but this is not one of Humphrey Bogart's great film noir humorous movies, but more like play on those movies.

Fred Flix: 'Old Commercials That Would Be Politically Incorrect Today'

Source: Fred Flix- Funny Face, LOL!

Source:The Daily Review

The flat tire commercial where it's automatically assumed that the woman can't change a tire, certainly wouldn't play today. Back in 1955 or the ( the Utopia for the Christian-Right ) it was consider unfeminine for women to be involved in any form for physical work that's traditionally done by men. And since gays were still living in the closet including lesbians, gay masculine women weren't even around at least in public, so no woman back then was expected to do physical manly work. ( To make a politically incorrect joke ) So no changing the flat tires on the cars, or fixing appliances, home improvement, working on cars, construction work, nothing that would be considered manly. Women were expected to stay away from all of those activities in America.

Source: Jonathan East- Warning for free speech opponents 

The commercial with the beautiful sexy women that looks like it came out in the late 1970s just from the color picture and how the hair and everything else looked, as a straight man I don't have any problems with that commercial. I could see why radical feminists would have a problem with it because they would view it as sexual exploitation. Taking advantage of women's sex appeal and beauty. But they probably see professional cheerleader squads as sexist as well even though none of these women are expected to participate in any of these activities. I could see why a commercial like that wouldn't play in San Francisco or New York or Boston, but don't know why it would be a problem anywhere else in the country.

Source: EBay- Not for people who hate free speech 

The cigarette and tobacco commercials, are not politically incorrect in anyway, because they're simply not offensive to anyone. The problems that they have with especially chewing tobacco is that tobacco and even tobacco cigarets are so unpopular today because so many Americans at least now know what tobacco does to you and the health risks that come from it. Tobacco unlike alcohol which is still very popular is becoming taboo in America. Even smokers won't smoke in their homes anymore especially if they have kids or if their spouse doesn't like tobacco. But back in lets say 1975 or whenever that commercial came out practically every American was smoking. You almost had to back in the 1970s to be considered cool or groovy, far out, hip, whatever the hip term was then.

The  commercial with the office secretary, kind of looks sexist to me, but in a funny way. Apparently the woman in the commercial is looking for a lunch date with her boss ( of all people ) and believes she can get that simply by wearing the right perfume or deodorant. Sort of implying that she's trying to move up in the company by being nice to her boss. If that commercial came out 10-15 years later or was part of a sitcom from let's say 1975-79 or even later, the commercial would've implied that the woman was trying to sleep her way to the top. I would see even as a hard core supporter for free speech who believes in almost no limits on it why that commercial could be seen as sexist.

We just live in a very different world now as we did in 1955. In some ways free speech and personal freedom is even more popular now where women aren't expected to stay home  and where couples aren't expected to get married before they move in together or have sex, or even have kids together. But in other ways even though our constitutional right to free speech is just as strong as it was 60-65 years ago, it's become less popular with young people. Who believe anyone who isn't a straight, male, Christian, Caucasian, has some artificial right not to be offended. Which of course is obviously not true, but you wouldn't know that from our current pop culture and even political culture. One of the reasons why Donald Trump is President of the United States, because you have millions of Americans probably tens of millions who are fed up with political correctness.
Source:Fred Flix

Politics & Prose: Rick Wilson: 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies'

Source:Politics and Prose- Rick Wilson, at Politics and Prose in Washington. 

Source:The New Democrat

To make the Donald Trump presidency look less depressing, at least to every insane, intelligent, honest  American let's imagine that Donald Trump is actually not President of the United States. That we never had not even one so-called reality TV star working in the most important political and government headquarters not just in the United States, but in the world. Let's just imagine that this was just some great story and mini-series put together by HBO or Showtime, maybe FX got into it. And this series was called Amateur Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or Reality Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, maybe the pros in Hollywood could come up with even better titles than that for this fictional mini-series.

Source: Go Fund Me- The Donald Trump 

If the Donald Trump presidency really was just a fictional series and the creators of that had an actor playing Trump or had Trump playing himself, this would be one of the best and funniest political fictional mini-series ever. Make it into a real series and give an entire season or multiple seasons and this show would be better and funnier than The West Wing. And The West Wing was a great funny show and in some cases even realistic. But that's unfortunately for every person who isn't a permanent resident at a mental institution, is not the reality. Our long national nightmare is heading into year three even if Democrats win back the House or Senate in a couple months or win back Congress completely, Donald Trump will still be President of the United States.
Source:Politics and Prose

David Niewart: Glenn Beck's: 'Leftist Fascism Hour: The Newspeak Version of History'

Source:David Niewart- Glenn Beck's Fox News show. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Glenn Beck's Leftist Fascism Hour': The Newspeak version of history"

Source:Thread Reader- Jonah Goldberg, on Glenn Beck's Fox News show 

From David Neiwart

What Jonah Goldberg and I guess Glenn Beck call Liberal Fascism ( which is at least a borderline Oxymoron ) and what I change to Leftist Fascism, are far-leftists both in America and around the world.

Socialists and in some cases even democratic, as well as Communists who believe they know what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees with them are not worthy of even being heard. You oppose their government or their way of thinking, you must be either corrupt or a bigot or both. According to their lack of thinking and logic.

You go to America and we now have a young generation of Americans who not only believe that free speech is dangerous, but question freedom and whether we should even have freedom. Who question whether people should be allowed to create their own personal wealth, but also make their own personal decisions.

We now have a generation of Millennials who look up to people like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro revolutionary Communists from Cuba and South America and look down at people like John Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, men who believed in individualism and individual rights, even property rights as well as free speech and personal freedom.

The reason why I said Liberal Fascism is a borderline Oxymoron, because liberalism is based off of liberal democracy.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

My personal politics is liberal democratic, not meaning I'm a Liberal and a Democrat both ideologically and my political party, but as someone who believes in liberal democracy as a Liberal.

We now have a young generation of Millennial's an and older generation of Americans people who are late Baby Boomers and even older who question liberal democracy and see it as threats to their way of life . That if you allow all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, politics, etc the same individual freedom as what they would call the real Americans and the true American Patriots, that weakens their America and their way of life and that can't be tolerated according to the nationalistic tribalist's on the Right.

And on the other fringe you have a young generation who not only question liberal democracy, but seem to believe that socialism and communism, are legitimate alternatives to liberal democracy.

So to label both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini as not only as Liberals but as Fascists, well you would be half right. Socialists and Fascists for sure, but Liberal of course not. You can't be both illiberal and liberal, it's one or the other. It would be like someone who calls them self both a Socialist and a Conservative. The two political movements go against each other like cars driving on the opposite side of the street.

Other than maybe Joe Stalin, it's hard to find another person who has ever lived anywhere in the world who is more illiberal ( not liberal ) than Adolf Hitler who sought out to murder people simply because of their ethnicity and that they weren't ethnic Germans, Nazi Germany attempted to murder every single European Jew.

I want to correct Glenn Beck and his Fox News Tea Party panel about one other thing: the word Progressive, is used as a substitute for not just Liberal, but every other political faction on the Left and even Right, when the fact is Progressive is a real political term and has real meaning.

You can be Progressive and Liberal just like someone can be tall and strong or tall and fat, but tall is not another word for strong or fat, they're different physical conditions and attributes.

Progressive, is different from both Liberal and Socialist. You can be a Liberal who believes in progress through government action which is what a Progressive is which is someone who believes in progress through government action. Someone like a Theodore Roosevelt. But you can be a Conservative who believes in progress through government action and be a Right-Progressive, someone like Nelson Rockefeller.

I respect Glenn Beck sometimes. I had more respect for him about a year ago when he was one of the strongest never-trumpers around, but then when I guess he saw that was hurting his bottomline his criticism of President Donald Trump and his Nationalist movement is now far away and infrequent. But he and his Tea Party crew are just dead wrong about Liberals and liberalism.

You can't be a Liberal and also believe that people should be murdered simply because of their race and ethnicity. And you can't be a Liberal if you believe that people who disagree with you don't have a right to be heard. Those aren't liberal values, but illiberal values whether they come from the Right or the Left.

Foundation Interviews: George Carlin- On Why It's Important To Not Care At All

Source:Foundation Interviews- George Carlin, being interviewed in 2007

Source:The New Democrat 

"George Carlin on why "It's important not to give a shit" - EMMYTVLEGENDS.ORG" 

From Foundation Interviews

Would like to hear more from George Carlin on why he believes it's not important to give a shit ( as he put it ) because that can be interpreted in multiple ways which is exactly what I'm going to do here and lay out what he might be talking about here.

"Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2]

Nihilism has also been described as conspicuous in or constitutive of certain historical periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch;[3] and some religious theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[4] and many aspects of modernity[5] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of theistic doctrine entails nihilism."

From Wikipedia

Is this what George Carlin meant when he said that it's important to bot give a shit? That he's someone who believed: "That a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

dogmatic atheists and nihilists could never defend the value of human life"

synonyms: skeptic, negativist, cynic, pessimist; More

historical

a supporter of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order."

If that's the case, then George Carlin and Donald Trump have plenty in common. They believe there's no such thing as a truth or at least one truth that nothing is real and everything is subjective to what the person at the time says or believes it is. If this is the case as far as what Carlin believes when he said it's important to not give a shit, then I can't respect him for that. Because are such things as rights and wrongs.

I get skepticism and I'm a skeptic myself and alway take the word of reason or the word of faith and trust only what I know and understand including people. Trust people and things that have earned my trust based on their records and my interactions with them. Not looking into their eyes and claiming to read their souls and saying that I trust this person or that person because I've claimed to viewed their soul and see that they are a good person.