Leave liberal Hollywood to the liberals - Society and Culture - AEI
Is Hollywood overwhelmingly what I would call Leftist which is different from Liberal who are part of American Leftism. But not the only Leftists in America, yes the majority of Hollywood is Leftist so of course you are going to see a lot of programming that American Leftists like and prefer. But Hollywood is made up of Capitalists and are as pro Capitalism as anyone in America and use American Capitalism. To make money in this country, we are not talking Socialist-Leftists running Hollywood and you also hear Progressive/Social-Democrats in this country. The Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky's of the world who criticize Hollywood Capitalism and corporatism. Because of all of the money they make and the fact they are as skillful at avoiding taxes and maximizing profits. As the oil companies, companies that American Rightists tend to support and because of this Hollywood tends to be profitable.
Hollywood simply has to make money and produce entertainment that Americans will watch and buy. And they have to represent the views and programming that the majority of Americans are interested in seeing. So if you want to blame Hollywood for being so Leftist or Liberal, you should look at the country as a whole. That watches and likes their entertainment, because its not as if Hollywood is producing entertainment that only a fringe of Americans or small minority. Is interested in or agrees with, otherwise they wouldn't make much money off of it and again what is Hollywood in the business of. Doing like the oil companies and other American corporations, to make money and be as profitable as possible. And they use and take advantage of the American Capitalist system and everything it as to offer about as well as. Anyone and support candidates, Democrats generally who support their views and won't get in their way to make a good living.
As much as the Michael Moore's and Alec Baldwin's of the World may put down American Capitalism and our economic system. They've both utilized everything that it has to offer so they can be as profitable as possible and raise as much money as possible. To live the comfortable lifestyle they want for them and their families but also to raise the money for the movies they want to make. And bring attention to the issues that they are interested in.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
The Zoan: Video: CBC Sports: NHL 1983: Stanley Cup Finals: Game 4: Edmonton Oilers @ Long Island Islanders
Monday, February 18, 2013
OraTV: Video: Sports: Newsbreaker With David Bignaud: LA Lakers Owner Jerry Buss Dies at 80 Years Old
Jerry Buss had cancer so he was dying so this isn't surprising but the loss to the National Basketball Association and pro sports in general. Is just as great because Dr. Buss set the standard I believe for how pro sports franchises are to be run. That its the job of the Chief Executive of the organization the Governor to lead the organization but its also the job of. The Chief Executive to hire good people around him and not to try to do their jobs for them. Something George Steinbrenner didn't learn until the early 1990s after the New York Yankees were actually. Struggling and no longer making the AL Playoffs but not even contending for the AL East and actually having losing records. Something they hadn't experienced before Mr. Steinbrenner took over the Yankees in the early 1970s. That the Chief Executive runs the organization and sets the vision for what he expects from his organization.
The most important job of a Chief Executive is to hire good people who know what they are doing and let them do their jobs. And once they aren't doing their jobs to the level that you set, then maybe you step in and find new people to do those jobs. And the perfect example of this is the Los Angeles Lakers of the 1980s where Dr. Buss has Jerry West as his General Manager. And West hires Pat Riley both former Lakers as the Head Coach. Dr. Buss didn't tell Jerry what players to sign and keep or who to trade for but left that up to Jerry to make those decisions. And I'm sure Jerry kept Dr. Buss up to date and Dr. Buss was in on how much those players were being paid and so fourth. But Jerry built the team that he and Pat Riley agreed that the Lakers should have after consulting Dr. Buss and what the Lakers of the 1980s should look like. And Dr. Buss didn't tell Pat Riley what plays to call on offense and what defenses to play either. Or who to play and how much but left that up to Coach Riley to make those decision.
A good Chief Executive is an architect or of an organization and lays out the vision of the organization should look like and what they expect from it. But then hires a good Executive Producer like a Jerry West and a good Director like a Pat Riley. And then lets them do their jobs and they keep the Chief Executive up to date on the status of their parts of the. Organization that they run instead of trying to do everyones job for them. Which is what Dr. Buss brought to the Lakers and why they are as successful as they are today.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
This is an interesting debate to have, because when you are talking about capitalism, it depends on what version of capitalism you are talking about. Because there are several versions of capitalism. Like socialism, there are many versions of it. And another thing about capitalism is that it’s not a political philosophy, but an economic idea that private enterprise is best over state enterprise and state ownership, at least generally speaking. Thats what it is this idea that individuals are better off making out of life what they do themselves economically.
Instead of government trying to make their economic decisions for them and trying to run the economy for them. Thats Capitalism in its basic form. So when you are talking about capitalism, or debating capitalism, unless you are discussing, or comparing capitalism with state ownership, meaning government owns the means and production of society, you should know what type of capitalism you are talking about, because again there are several versions of it.
To know how there are several different versions of capitalism in the world, but also in America as well. Just look at Europe, which for the most part made up of social democracies, or socialist republics. But they all have private enterprise systems where the majority of the people in those countries work for private companies and organizations. But the difference being that they have democratic socialist systems. Where yes the economy and enterprise is private for the most part, but where the state meaning the Federal Government there plays a big role in providing human services.
Human services that Social Democrats and even some Euro Conservatives don’t trust the private sector to provide. Things like health care, health insurance, but most of the countries also have private hospitals and clinics as well. Plus private health insurers, take Germany which has a private health care system. And where there health care system costs half of ours, but where the state also has a role in providing these services. Education, pension, childcare to use as other examples.
So this is not a debate about capitalism vs socialism, but different forms of capitalism and which are better than the others. Or capitalism vs state enterprise and its real hard to make the case that state enterprise is better than capitalism. Take North Korea to use as an example. But a better debate is whether democratic socialism like you see in Europe is better than economic liberalism, or economic conservatism that we have in America.
Where we tax and spend a lot less, but where we also regulate like in Europe and where we also have a safety net. Both private and public to help the people who fall through the cracks of the private sector. And where we also have a public education and public infrastructure system so products that are created by private enterprise as well as their workers can move around in a timely and affordable way. But then you also have state capitalism like you see in China and now in Cuba a mixture of private and state enterprise.
The American economic system is not perfect and needs to be improved. But myself as a Liberal like the notion that individuals can make out of life what they put into it and be able to collect the rewards of their production. And deal with the consequences of their bad decisions with a system that promotes economic and job growth and success. With a good public education system,a good infrastructure system, a national energy policy that promotes and utilizes all of our natural resources and a safety net that empowers people who fall down so they can get back up on their own.
I look at the 1971 Attica riot as an example of and a consequence of what can happen when you boil or overcook something so long. That it explodes and creates a huge mess which is exactly what happened in the 1971 Attica prison riot. And goes to the other problem of poverty in America that leads to all of these people going to prison. Because they didn't have much of a shot at being successful and productive life legally because they didn't have much of a shot. At life in the beginning so they end up dropping out of some school that wasn't giving them much of a shot at succeeding in life. Which is a bad decision on their part but explains the bad decision making on their part though and I'm not excusing the actions that inmates make. That leads to them ending up, in prison but explaining what leads to them to making these bad decisions. But poverty in this country and the lack of access to a quality education is at most half of the problem. The other problem has to do with how we treat people who end up in prison and have to be there for the good. And protection of society but in some cases for their own good as well.
So we don't have an education system that provides enough educational and economic opportunity for enough people in this country. But we also don't have a very good correctional system if you want to call it that but for the most part we have a prison or warehouse system instead. Where we house people so they can't commit further crimes in society at least until they get out of prison. And for the most part American inmates at some point are released from prison and if they are still in the same shape that they were in. Or worse and have become better or more violent criminals, chances are they'll end up back in prison and for worst. Offenses as well because something like 2/3 or 7-10 inmates in this country end up back in prison. And Attica prison in the late 1960s and early 1970s is a perfect example of that where they were. Stuck with awful food if you want to call it that, lack of healthcare, educational and vocational opportunities.
In some ways the Attica riot was almost necessary, not the innocent people who got hurt. But there needed to be attention brought to the conditions of how we treat some of our inmates. In this country and not that inmates should enjoy being in prison and want to comeback but that. They need to be treated humanely and not like animals with the opportunity to be productive and make a good life for themselves legally once they are out of prison.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Looks like Nixon White House Chief of Staff Al Haige put the option on the table for then Vice President Gerald Ford. That he consider pardoning Richard Nixon once Ford becomes President of the United States at least according to Gerald Ford.
The Seattle Seahawks not just became winners in 1983 but contenders and a regular playoff team in the AFC. And ended up having a pretty good decade in the 1980s under head coach Chuck Knox who built another winner and contender in Seattle. Like he did in Los Angeles and Buffalo but like in those cities and in Seattle. Being a contender even a championship contender is different then being a champion. Where you win your conference championship, get to and win the Super Bowl. Something that Chuck Knox or Ground Chuck wasn't able to do in Los Angeles, Buffalo and in Seattle where he had very good teams in each city. But never quite got over the top.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
NBC Sports: Video: NFL 1983: AFC Final: Seattle Seahawks @ Los Angeles Raiders: AL Davis Raiders Wild 1983 Playoffs
Saturday, February 9, 2013
As a Liberal Democrat I guess I have mixed feelings about Ronald Reagan our 40th President of The United States. Because compared with todays Republican Party, Ron Reagan looks like a God as someone greater than the GOP could ever imagine to be. The Reagan-Goldwater conservative coalition that rebuilt the GOP in the 1970s and 1980s, has now become the Christian-Conservative coalition GOP thats more of a theocratic or religious party rather than a true conservative party. And Reagan went after the votes of the Christian Coalition but he did that to win to have their votes. And so they wouldn't back a candidate from the Far-Right that would cost the GOP elections. Not because he was part of that coalition. So I guess Ron Reagan if he were alive and functioning today probably wouldn't be very happy with todays GOP. So thats one reason why I have a lot of respect for Ron Reagan was his character and his realism. You knew exactly who he was and when he said he was a Conservative, you could believe him for the most part.
Despite Reagan not being much of a fiscal conservative with his supply-side economics and all of the borrowing that came from that. But he was a true government out-of-my-wallet, bedroom and classroom Conservative. But what I don't have much respect for Ron Reagan was his libertarian almost anti-government side of him. That we are still dealing with as a country that the GOP has taken to heart when it comes to economic policy. Certainly pro-government when it comes to social policy, where Reagan didn't have much in common with Religious-Right. And pro-government when it comes to defense policy, but the economic philosophy that Reagan built that the GOP almost has got around across the board and it's made it very difficult for the Federal Government to address major issues and problems of the day as it relates to debt and deficit. Immigration, infrastructure, healthcare, energy, reforming entitlements and social welfare as a whole. Because this wing of the GOP essentially believes government has no role here.
So what I like and respect about Ron Reagan was that he was a true anti-big government and statism Conservative. Who believed that it wasn't the job of government to tell Americans how to live their lives. Which is why he almost looks liberal compared with todays religious and neoconservative Republican Party. But the other part of the Reagan political legacy it's made it almost impossible for the Federal Government to do it's job. And has brought so much opposition towards him that the country today is left politically between two wings. One believing that government should so almost everything from the New-Left. And the other wing believing that government should do almost nothing from the Libertarian-Right. Which isn't much of a choice for the country.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Just to let you know I separate mainstream right wingers from the Far-Right. That yes center-rightists and far-rightists are both on the right wing of the American political spectrum. But classical conservatism is the mainstream right wing political philosophy in America. And I see ethane-nationalism and right wing tribalism, as part of the Far-Right in America. And I'll explain what I mean by this in this post and explain why they are different.
I guess the popular definition of American neoconservatism is that Democracy should be promoted around the world. And that the goal of the United States should be to eliminate authoritarian regimes around the world. And that the military should be the main tool to accomplish this and that we should even do these things unilaterally if necessary. I would go further with that and say that Neoconservatives believe that the strength of our national defense should be viewed based on how much we spend on it. And security of the state meaning country should be paramount and not just as it relates to national security. But our moral fiber and national morality and so-forth even if that means we need to restrict individual freedom, to use as examples. Neoconservatives are typically in favor of the Iraq War, but don't have much respect for Libertarians or Conservatives.
Neoconservatives don't tend to have much respect for the Ron Paul's of the world who believe in a high degree of individual freedom across the board. As long as we aren't hurting innocent people, that we shouldn't have have national standards for individual behavior. Instead of allowing individuals to live their lives. Neoconservatives what's the best for the nation as a whole. And that government has a role to not only only protect people but at times even protect people from themselves. Even if that means restricting individual freedom. Which is how we get things like the Patriot Act and indefinite detention where a good case can be made that both are unconstitutional. Because they violate the right to privacy and a fair speedy trial, but these two laws are both neoconservative policies that put security over freedom in this country. Or gay-marriage bans or pornography bans because Neoconservatives and the Religious-Right in America, see these activities as violating our national morality and moral code.
The main differences I see between Conservatives and Neoconservatives, is that Conservatives believes in freedom and that the main job of government is to protect our freedom. And that means having a certain level of security, but that we can't have freedom without security. That we need both to balance each other out to make them as effective as possible. Whereas Neoconservatives tend to believe in a certain level of freedom, they aren't Communists. But they certainly have a certain level of statism in their philosophy. Believe that security and national morality always has to be paramount and that it's more important then freedom itself.
Raiders247Football: Video: NBC Sports: NFL 1982: AFC Wild Card: Cleveland Browns @ Los Angeles Raiders: Don Criqui With The Call
Saturday, February 2, 2013
|Source: The Film Archives-|
I'm going to separate Conservative right wingers from the Far-Right in America. Because they are almost completely different. Conservatives are democratic and believe in democracy. Even at times speak in favor of liberal democracy. Where as the Far-Right in America are authoritarians and statists and a coalition small but loud made up of Nationalists, Christian-Theocrats and Nazi's.
This post is about the Far-Right in America and I'm going to concentrate on the Far-Right. Theocrats mainly and how they came about. The Christian-Right in America has probably always been around and were originally part of the Klu Klux Klan or the KKK has its elements that the Far-Right came from and the Christian-Right in America. Basically emerged politically in America as a powerful coalition as a response to the 1960s. And what they called an invasion of liberalism and social freedom throughout America.
As all sorts of groups in America emerged with new power and freedom. African-Americans, women, homosexuals and Latin-Americans. The labor and environmental movement, the antiwar movement, the Baby Boom generation and others. And they saw all of these groups as a threat to the Christian-Right's way of life. Where all families have two parents living together, dad worked, mom stayed at home and raised the kids. But with dad making most of the decisions. African-Americans almost without any power. Homosexuals in the closet, pornography, sex before marriage, adultery, unmarried couples living together. All considered immoral and so- forth.
By the mid to late 1960s before the Religious-Right became a force in America, they were basically left without a political party as the Democratic Party became more liberal on civil rights. And Richard Nixon being the brilliant politician that he was knowing that the Republican Party was simply too small to compete with Democrats nationally, brought Christian-Theocrats what I call the Religious-Right into the Republican Party and started working the South. To expand the Republican coalition which is how he was able to be elected President.
And basically ran against the liberal 1960s and these Southern Christian-Theocrats came into the Republican Party in a big way. To the point by the 1980s Republicans pretty much owned the South. Or at least were able to compete with Democrats into the South as long as they appeal to these Christian-Theocrats. And thats how the political party spectrum was switched around in America with Democrats controlling the Northeast and West Coast and Republicans controlling the South.
The Religious-Right in America basically emerged in the mid and late 1960s in response to what they saw as out-of-control liberalism and freedom in America. And saw what they see as traditional America being under attacked. And what they saw as their religious freedom which at times is basically just bigotry against groups they disagree with as under attacked and grew throughout the 1970s, a major force by the late 1970s to the point that national Republicans couldn't win without them.
WWE Fan Nation: Video: WCW TV Championship: "Stunning" Steve Austin vs Barry Windham: Stunning Steve Cheats to Win
Cheating to win in clean site with the referee of course not aware of what's going on. Something I don't like about pro wrestling.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Fox Sports: Video: Roundtable: Super Bowl 47: Baltimore Ravens vs San Francisco 49ers: Comparing QB's
I give the edge to Joe Flacco because he's a young veteran QB whose played in almost nothing but big games so far in his career. And has won a lot of them and the Ravens as a whole have a lot more big game experience as well.