Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

LeAnn Rimes: Life Goes On

Source: LeAnn Rimes Official- LeAnn Rimes's Life Goes On 
Source: The New Democrat

Source LeAnn Rimes

"You sucked me in and played my mind

Just like a toy

You would crank and wind

Baby, I would give you to what you want

You left me lying in a pool of doubt

If you're still thinking your the daddy mack

Ya shouldn't known better

But ya didn't

And I can't go back

Oh life goes on

And it's only gonna make me strong

It's a fact

Once you get on board

Say good-bye

'Cause you can't go back

Oh it's a fight

And I really want to get it right

Where I'm at

It's my life before me

Got this feeling

That I can't go back

Wish I knew then what I know now

You held all the cards

And sold me out

Baby, shame on you if you fool me once

Shame on me if you fool me twice

You've been a pretty hard case to crack

Should've of known better

But I didn't

And I can't go back."

Source: Fun For Funny- LeAnn Rimes's Life Goes On 
I believe this is one my favorite songs now and certainly one of my favorite LeAnn Rimes song. Her music from the Coyote Ugly days and album is really what I love about her music. Can't Fight The Moonlight, How do I live. Not a country music fan even though I like country girls, which is really a different subject, but I like this song which isn't a country song. LeAnn, is from the pop country school of country music that came out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Where country is mixed in with pop. Shania Twain, graduated from that school and in the mid 2000s Gretchen Wilson and Miranda Lambert took that a step further and address classic rock and even blues to their country music. With their music really being about country or rural life, but with a harder rock edge to it. One of the reasons why I like Life Goes On is because it's not a country song.

About the song itself, what LeAnn is saying here is that what won't kill her will just make her stronger. Which is sort of cliche now but it's right on point. This song is about a relationship that went south and she's saying that it's time to move on and that life goes on for her without this man in her life that I guess did her wrong. Reminds me a lot of Tina Turner's I Don't Wanna Fight from 1993. And the point of the song is so spot on and so honest about what life is really about which is that we all start off life with a steep learning curve and the only way to really live life is buy learning about it. Which includes making mistakes, not intentionally at least for most us but learning by doing learning from experience including making mistakes and even bad mistakes. And using those mistakes to improve ourselves and make us into better people.

And that is what this song is about that she went through a rough relationship with a guy and suffered from it because she trusted someone who hurt her over and over and guess finally woke up and decided it's time to move on and that life really goes on for her and that has to be without him. The whole line about which sounds corny but is very true that, "shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice" is a perfect example of that and she finally got it that this guy is playing her and can't be trusted and it's time for her to dump him. That she should've known better but didn't and she can't go back because life goes on. Great song with a great message to it.
Source:LeAnn Rimes

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The Atlantic: Daniela Sherer- It's Good To Be A Rebel

Source: The Atlantic Magazine- Daniela Sherer, on being a rebel. 
Source:The New Democrat

I start off this piece arguing that it's good to be a rebel, but I would add as long as you're doing it for the right reasons.

Source: Missy Matthews- Damn straight! 
For example, I wouldn't recommend going to a country club and playing golf with your hair down to your back wearing black leather vest with no shirt, leather jeans, and black leather boots like some rebel biker simply because you want to look different from all the other golfers. That might be a point where you would want to try to fit in and wear a golf outfit and you might even be able to find a golf outfit that doesn't put you back in the 1950s. Or ordering a cheeseburger and a beer at a French restaurant and when the waiter tells you, "sir, we don't serve cheeseburgers here", you complain about bad service simply to sound cool. And perhaps show up at the same French restaurant in your biker outfit. Good luck even getting in to the French restaurant if you do.

Source: Brainy Quote- Actor Clint Eastwood on being a rebel 
There's a time and place for everything and always a time to do the right thing whether it's popular or not. But the problem with American culture today unlike with the Baby Boomers from the 1960s and early 70s is that today being an outsider unless you're in politics is almost considered a sin. People today are almost squarely judged superficially. By what cellphone they have. What coffee they drink. What coffee house they go to and do they go to a coffee house at all, because if you go to and hangout at coffee houses on a regular basis and seen walking on the street with coffee cup staring at your smartphone, you're considered cool. But if you don't and your life isn't driven by what's going on with your smartphone and what people are saying on your favorite social media networks or apps, you're considered an outsider.

Where back in the mid and late 1960s especially, perhaps the early and mid 1970s, the cool people were the outsiders who ran against the social establishment and status quo. Back then Americans weren't judged by how many celebrities they know and who they're favorite celebrities are or do they even have any. Or what their favorite so-called reality TV shows and cable shows were, or did they even watch those shows at all. And of course a lot these changes have to do with new technology. Cable TV wasn't regularly available until the late 1970s or 1980s, wasn't around at all until 1974-75. The personal computer didn't come out until 1975 with laptops coming out 10-15 years after that. The internet and cell phones comes out in the early 1990s.

My point being that new technology has a lot to do with the character and behavior of Americans now simply because we have access to so much more information today than we did 50 years ago at the height of the Cultural Revolution. And we simply know so much more about each other than we did 50 years ago. And because of this people feel the need to be like their favorite Hollywood stars or athletes, look, talk, and act like them. And people who decide to just be themselves as the person they were born as, the person who isn't one of the first 100 people to buy the latest smartphone or whatever the device is and doesn't know which rehab facility Charlie Sheen is currently staying at or what's the reason for Paris Hilton's latest arrest and what jail she's at, they look like outsiders and "like so no awesome and uncool."

As someone who has always been an outsider and has never fit in very well with the so-called in-crowd, who doesn't get drunk just to have a good time and let people know how much I drink and doesn't even need to get drunk to have a good time and doesn't even drink alcohol at all, I'm speaking from experience when I tell you that it's hard to be a rebel an outsider in modern American culture.

I'm a man who puts cheddar cheese on his spaghetti for crying out loud which is probably considered a sin in the Italian culture, mayonnaise on my cheeseburgers, and I could go on. My point being the only person I know how to be is the person I was born as and see the in mirror which is myself. I'm an individualist who believes in individualism simply because I don't know any other way to live. I'm just not a good enough actor to play the roles of a the latest reality TV star or new tech junkie. And if you're going to also be a rebel, try being yourself first and don't just standout in order to standout. Be true and real to yourself, which is as rebellious as anyone needs to be in America today.
Source:The Atlantic

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

The Atlantic: Hannibal Buress- Advice For Comedians

Source: The Atlantic Magazine- Part of Hannibal Burgess's comedy routine. 
Source:The New Democrat

I didn't get much from Hannibal Buress here as far as advice for comedians, other than that inspiring comedians should just do it. Write down what they think and try to get a job performing or becoming a comic writer. Which would be like telling and inspiring basketball player that if they want to make it to the NBA, they should just play and try to become the best basketball player that they can become. Which is sort of like telling people to cross the street with their eyes open and look to see whether any vehicles are coming first. And also adding that if vehicles are coming, don't cross yet, but if no one is coming or the next vehicle is like 20 feet from you, then it's OK to across. No offense, but I could get better advice from my nephew or nieces.

Source: The Economist- Truer words have never been said 
So as someone who writes political satire on my blog and writes about politics a lot of the lighter side of it which today where it seems like something stupid and funny about our government and politicians happens everyday, there's no shortage of material. Similar to Niagara Falls where there's never any shortage of water, I'm going to give you my own advice for comedians especially political satirists and people who want to do comedy and satire about politics and government for a living.

The first thing I would say is don't worry about offending people short of saying something that is truly bigoted. Not what oversensitive over caffeinated Millennials thinks is bigoted because what the hell they know about anything that's not celebrity culture and new technology anyway that they don't see on their I-phone. But as long as you're not comparing people of any race or ethnicity with animals, to use as an example or using racial or ethnic slurs and your humor is just critical whether it's about religion, culture, lifestyle, or anything else don't worry about being offensive.

Comedy almost by by definition is offensive and meant to offend unless it's self-deprecating because you're pointing out the flaws about people, places, things, situations. So if you're writing a humorous, but critical and even truthful piece about someone or something, people, or doing a comedy routine and you do it well, of course you're going to offend someone or some people. But so what because you're just doing your job which is to make fun of the lighter side of life and the flaws of people and places in society.

I mean what's the worst thing that will happen to you if you're doing a good job as a comedian or humorous and pick up a following and making a good living at it, but some people find you offensive and even bigoted, you won't be able to perform in front of over caffeinated, oversensitive college students and people just out of college? If they're your target audience to begin with, you're not going to have much of a following and will spend most of your time just offending over caffeinated, oversensitive young adults.

My other piece of advice would be especially if you want to do comedy about politics and government is to be nonpartisan and just go where the material takes you instead of just concentrating on the flaws of one party or another. Or a political faction in one party or the other. This idea that one party has all the Saints and enlightenment and the other party has a monopoly on stupidity and corruption, makes as much sense as crossing a busy street blindfolded.

We all have our own politics and positions on policy issues but when it comes to comedy we shouldn't pretend that those things don't exist, but be honest enough to be able to see the humor and lighter side, the pure stupidity in both parties including our own or whatever political party that we happen to be a member of. Take the George Carlin approach to political satire and go where the material and comedy takes you wherever it takes you.

Comedy should be offensive! What's funny about the Philadelphia Eagles winning the Super Bowl or someone getting a great job or landing a big raise or promotion? Comedy rarely if ever is about the positives in life and almost always is about negativity in life. Like a politician who doesn't do his homework and just wings it before going to meetings, or claims to no more about national security and foreign policy than all the generals, even though he has no military or foreign policy experience, or even governmental experience before getting elected to his first political office. Comedy should be about what's wrong with life and people and using to help people help themselves instead of trying to be mean. Or that's comedy at it's best at least.
The Atlantic: Hannibal Buress- Advice For Comedians

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Roll Call: David Hawkings- 'Opus: '5 Reasons Why Congress is Broken'

Source:Roll Call- A look at our Congress. 
Source:The New Democrat

"Roll Call senior editor David Hawkings has been covering Congress for three decades, and he’s convinced that the legislative branch is more broken now than at any other point in his career. Here’s why." 

From Roll Call

I guess I would disagree a little with what David Hawkings is saying here and that I would add a little to his argument as well.

Money, is an issue with Congressional elections, but it's not the issue. It's not so much what's spent on House and Senate elections, but the fact that we as voters don't know what the money is spent on and how it was raised, who donated the money to the Congressional candidate or incumbent, or did a third-party raise that money and decided to spend it on a Congressional race and how they raised that money.

If someone wants to spend ( or waste ) 10 million dollars on a U.S. House race, that's their money. But we as voters and the media have a right to know how they raised and spent that money. So we know if that candidate or incumbent is being bought like a loaf or bread and taking policy positions based on what their political contributors are giving them. And if they promised their contributors votes and bills if they give them money.

If we had full-disclosure on all political contributions from candidates, incumbents, and third-parties that and raise and spend their own money on Congressional elections and money that's raised and spent by third-parties to run their own advertising on those races, we could fire a lot of crooks and liars in Congress, because we would know how they get their political contributions. 

Or another option would be that those crooks and liars would clean their political hands and start voting and legislating based on what they actually believe is best for their district or state, because they don't want to be seen as bought because they know the voters, media, and probably more important for them the Federal Elections Commission will know how they raise their money. Who they're getting their political contributions from.

With full-disclosure, people could ask themselves: "Do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the oil and gas industry and always votes and legislates in favor of them?" Or: "Do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the teacher unions and never takes a position that goes against them like school choice and school accountability?" 

Members of Congress in both chambers fundraising records would become public, as well as their Congressional records their votes and positions that they've taken in Congress, because of full-disclosure and voters would have a lot of information at their disposal to look at and see if they want to reelect their Representative or Senator. or vote for or against their opponents when they're up for reelection.

Just to talk about the U.S. House for a second and the main reasons why the House is broken and functions more like a broken home where you can't close the doors or windows in it, and the floors are cracking, is two reasons.

Gerrymandering- the reason why Representatives are so partisan and act as if they now hate members of the other party and just don't disagree with them is because they represent gerrymandered districts and voters who hate the other party. These Representatives simply come from the community that they represent and are representing the views of their constituents in the House. 

You eliminate partisan gerrymandering from both parties and Democratic and Republican Representatives would then be forced to represent people from both parties in their district. Instead of representing a House district where 3-5 or 7-10 voters in their district are members of their own party. They would be forced to moderate their positions and tone in order to get reelected because their district would be a lot more diverse.

Majority always rules- the other reason why the House is so partisan is because of the way the chamber is set and run where the majority party isn't just in complete control of the agenda but how bills are debated and have complete control of whether even amendments to partisan bills can be offered or not. Unlike in the Senate where the minority party led by the Minority Leader can not only obstruct the majority if they have at least 41 votes to do that, but can offer amendments and substitutes and have those amendments voted on to every bill that comes to the Senate floor, as well as in committee.

Not saying that the House should also have a cloture rule and allow the minority party led by the Minority Leader to obstruct everything, because that would make the Washington rush hour look like a NASCAR event, ( an inside the beltway joke ) and nothing would get done in the house. But the House minority party should at least be allowed to offer amendments and substitutes to bills and have those alternatives voted on to every bill that the majority party tries to write and pass on their own. Giving the minority party stake in the game and a feeling that there to do something other than to talk and vote no.

I'll just close this piece with a little George Carlin the great political satirist. He asked the question to his audience during one of his shows where do politicians come from? And I'll paraphrase him by saying they weren't shipped here from Mars or some other planet or flown in here from another country. They go to the same schools that we did and same communities. They represent the communities that sent them to Congress or whatever office they hold.

Carlin's point was that politicians aren't much different than the people they're supposed to represent that their Congressional salary is supposed to pay for. The reason why Congress especially the House is so partisan is because that is what their voters want it to be. To vote exactly the want they want them to and represent their values and not compromise, because they see the other party as the enemy and not as opponent. 

You want a better and less partisan Congress, especially in the House, you need better and less partisan voters voting for its members.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Law & Order: Season 17- Talking Points: Featuring Charlotte Ross & Ron Silver

Source: Law & Order- Ron Silver & Louis Cancelmi, on Law & Order Talking Points. 
Source:The New Democrat

Just on a personal note first, I'm a huge fan of Law & Order. It was one of 3-5 network shows that I watched regularly in the 1990s when I was in high school and just out of high school. It always had a great cast, great storylines, great writing, plots, guest stars like Charlotte Ross and Ron Silver in the Talking Points episode. We're talking about one of the most popular and best TV series that has ever come out of Hollywood and certainly one of the best series that NBC has ever produced along with their great sitcoms from the 1980s and Columbo before that.

Source: Charlotte Ross- Charlotte Ross, as Judith Barlow on Law & Order Talking Points 
And a few weeks ago I'm flipping around the tube after just finishing work and getting and eating dinner and I see a Law & Order marathon on ION-TV ( I guess it's called ) and if you're familiar with that network you know they only show old TV reruns and reruns in general. They've produced maybe one TV series of their own which is Private Eyes which is still on. And each night during the week they do a marathon of reruns for one particular TV series. On Wednesday it's Law & Order all day and all night. TNT, has a similar Law & Order marathon late Tuesday and Saturday night as well. Every other week and sometimes every week.

Source: Getty Images- Sam Waterston, as NYC Executive Asst. DA Jack McCoy 
So, watching this Law & Order marathon on ION 3-4 weeks ago is where I came across the Talking Points episode which is one of my favorite LO episodes or I wouldn't be writing about it, because it was so perfect with the times of the late 2000s. This show came out in 2007 when free speech and political correctness were real issues on campus and where you had controversial right-wing authors and speakers, talk show hosts, like Charlotte Ross's character on this show, speaking on college campuses that tend to be dominated by left-wing students who believed that controversial right-wing speakers didn't have a right to speak, at least at their school and to them.

Source: ION Television- Jesse Martin & Milena Govich 
Judith Barlow, ( played by Charlotte Ross ) is controversial right-wing author and speaker who speaks on college campuses and is basically the Ann Coulter of this show who says nasty things to piss people off and to sell her books and other writings. She gives a speech on campus at a New York college to a bunch of leftist students ( to be kind ) who perhaps believe she doesn't have a right to her own opinion and perhaps not familiar with the First Amendment which unfortunately wouldn't have been in common back during the 2000s or certainly today. She goes too far at least for one particular student there and he not just brings a gun to this event but fires it into the crowd trying to shoot her and instead shoots and kills and innocent bystander there. Obviously not the work of a professional hitman.

The star of this show is Charlotte Ross, not the only star, but the star of this particular show. Ron Silver, does a great job playing the defense lawyer here, Fred Thompson is still on the show as the District Attorney, with Sam Waterston as his deputy and Alana De Le Garza has his assistant. Jesse Martin, as the lead NYPD Detective on the case, Milena Govich as his partner. Like I said before, Law & Order always had a great cast and both as far as regulars and as guest stars and Talking Points is a perfect example of that. But Charlotte Ross, on this show plays Ann Coulter better than Ann Coulter plays herself, but is a helluva lot better looking and so much cuter and sexier as she normally is and perhaps even funnier than Ann Coulter who also has a good wit, when she's not a witch from hell.
Source:Law & Order