Prem Panicker: The West Wing: Why is Liberal a Bad Word?

Source:The New Democrat

Matthew Santos played by Jimmy Smits, a great actor, doing a solid job of defending liberalism against Arnold Vinick played by the great actor and comedian Alan Alda. This of course was part of the last season of The West Wing with a lot of focus on who was going to be next President after Jeb Bartlett played by the great Martin Sheen. And the Democratic nominee was Representative Matthew Santos played again by Jimmy Smits and the Republican nominee was Senator Arnold Vinick played by Alan Alda.

I wouldn't consider Matt Santos to be the liberal in this election, but the candidate who was furthest left at least amongst by major party presidential candidates on this show. He advocated for eliminating school tenure for public school teachers, which is something I support as a Liberal. Not the point of this post, but then he advocates for nationalizing public education in America and putting the Federal Government in charge of schools in America. That was from the early days of this campaign, which was on season 6.

No real Liberal would advocate for nationalizing public schools in this country. I'm not sure I can come up with a more anti-liberal position than nationalizing the school system. I mean talk about top-down over-bureaucratic government agencies, nationalize the school system where Washington tells Seattle, San Francisco, Dallas and Atlanta and everyone else in the country how to educate their kids and you'll see exactly what I mean. With a school system worth trillions of dollars and a huge part of the American economy.

I said Matt Santos did a solid job of defending liberalism. And I meant that and I just laid out where this fictional character came up short as a Liberal and looks more like a Socialist. But where he did a good job was talking about expanding rights and freedom in this country, which is the main point of liberalism and the main reason for being a Liberal. Not expanding governmental power, but expanding the power of individuals over their own lives. And he gave great examples including ending slavery, women's right to vote, Medicare and Social Security. 

Classic Canada Sports: NHL Expansion Documentary: Why The World Hockey Association Was Successful

Source:Real Life Journal

The National Hockey League up until the late 1960s were a six team league, just six franchises in the whole league representing two huge countries physically Canada and America. Spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, until they expanded in the late 1960s in major markets like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver, Los Angeles, Washington in the mid 1970s. The National Hockey League spent its first fifty- years or so trying to prove to North America, especially America that they were even a major sports league, they've passed that test since, but they had a hard time expanding anywhere.

The NHL was reluctant to expand which is good reasons for the World Hockey Association. Not sure why they called it that because they were only in two countries, but it's good for major league hockey in North America that they came into business in the early 1970s. Because they proved in just seven seasons that major league hockey could work in both Canada and America and went into markets like Hartford, Cleveland, Quebec, Winnipeg, Denver, Edmonton and others. Giving pro hockey players more of a choice in where they could play in what league and for what team. 

The WHA proved that major league hockey could work in North America that the NHL was trapping it's player in having to play for one team even after their contract expired. And that the NHL wasn't doing a very good job in attracting as many fans as they could. The WHA was able to do as well as they did in that brief seven-year window that they had because they were able to attract talent that should've been in the NHL. But that the NHL let slide away from them because again they were trying to keep them with one club not letting see for themselves what else was out there. 

But also players that should've been in the NHL, but there just wasn't enough room for them because again up until the late 1960s again the NHL only had six clubs. Which meant great players like forwards Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretsky who I guess the NHL thought was too small. But all Wayne Gretsky did was show the world that he might be the best hockey player who ever played. But you could also make a case for Gordie Howe as far as who's the greatest all around hockey player of all-time, but thats a different debate. 

And without the WHA maybe the NHL doesn't have thirty clubs today, because maybe they wouldn't of taken chances on markets like Nashville, Tampa, Miami, Raleigh, Denver, San Jose etc. And maybe they are still a small league just trying to survive like the Major Indoor Soccer League or something. The WHA was a success because a lot of their clubs were able to become part of the NHL. Like the Winnipeg Jets, Edmonton Oilers and others. And proved that major league hockey can succeed in North America. And without the WHA, the NHL is probably not as successful as it is today.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Jimmy Stewart Delightfully Funny (1989)

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t do a Jimmy Stewart impression. I wish I could, because he’s one of my favorite funny actors of all-time. Similar to Cary Grant or Robert De Niro of today. The best I can do with Stewart, is use what are today and have been for a while all of these cheesy expressions and words that he used all the time in his movies. Sounding like a small town country boy going to a big city for the first time in his life and saying things like gee wiz, dog gonnit, cheesy stuff like that. But sounds hysterical when it is in a movie that has a lot of cussing in it, but the movie is edited and replaced with words like this.

But Johnny Carson was right when he said that he could play straight man to Jimmy’s comedian and wiseass who is never serious. Johnny could feed him all the material that Jimmy would need to comment on and Jimmy without a script could do standup off the top of his head without preparation and sound hysterical. As we saw in this video with Johnny asking Jimmy basic questions about what is going on in his life and Jimmy playing comedian in response. Like saying his New Years resolution was to talk faster. One reason he is famous is for talking slow.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite movies of all-time. And even though I don’t think it was supposed to be, it is also one of the funniest movies of all-time. The humor you see from Jeff Smith in the movie played by Jimmy Stewart is very similar to the real life Stewart. Observational, off the cuff, what are you thinking, no time to prepare, instant humorous analysis of what you are seeing. Which is Jimmy Stewart and what you see in this video on Carson

Real Time With Bill Maher: Talks About Ron Paul

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

Source:Real Life Journal 

"This discussion was from episode 224. I apologize for the odd jitters in the video inbetween." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

There was a time when Bill Maher considered himself a Libertarian, at least in the sense that he didn't want big government in his personal and economic affairs. But not what's called an Anarcho-Libertarian today who is someone who essentially believes that there's essentially no place for government at all. 

There are Anarcho-Libertarians that believe that law enforcement arresting suspects for possible crimes is a form a kidnap. Bill Maher never believed that and I don't think Representative Paul ever believed that. 

But Bill Maher has always believed that government shouldn't try to tell people how they should live and should stay out of our business as long as what we're doing is our business and we're not hurting innocent people. Which is what I've always believed as a Liberal and what Classical Liberals believe, that government should regulate who people interact with each other , but not prohibit consensual behavior amongst adults.

This was Bill Maher up until 2009 or so. I believed except for private firearms that Maher has always believed that government should stay out of the private affairs of individuals.  But where's he changed has to do with economic policy where he's become a Democratic Socialist. And has just as much in common with Socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont on economic policy, as he has in common with Representative Paul on social issues. 

Maher has moved big government from our bedroom and personal lives and has stuck it into our wallets and bank accounts. He's said that government should be running schools, health care, health insurance, pensions and not have the private sector involved here. 

Senator Sanders is a strong supporter of personal freedom even in the area of firearms and being a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Bill Maher would outlaw private ownership of firearms. But the rest of Maher's socially liberal stances are intact. Including free speech and being one of the strongest opponents of political correctness.

Terms like Socialist-Liberal and Libertarian-Socialist, sort of get thrown out there especially on social media. And are terms I've used myself, but what do they actually mean? I define Socialist-Liberal as someone who is socialist on economic policy and a big believer in the welfare state and that private enterprise needs to be heavily taxed and regulated and private income needs to be heavily taxed, but that private property and ownership should exist. But who is very liberal in the classical and real sense on social issues and a big believer in personal freedom. 

A Socialist-Liberal is a collectivist on economic policy, but an individualist on personal issues and doesn't want big government interfering and prohibiting the private behavior of consenting adults. But back in 2007 Bill Maher was with Ron Paul on a lot of issues and wanted him to be the next President of the United States. I believe it was really the Great Recession and the Tea Party, that moved Maher way to the left on economic policy. While maintaining his very liberal views on social issues.

History Channel: Dangerous Devotion - Decoding the Past

Source:Real Life Journal.  

I believe its the common wisdom that for people to be member of cult groups, that there's clearly something wrong with them. They have some mental disease, that no one else has picked up on or thought it was a big enough problem that it needed to be addressed. That all cultists lets call them are ex-convicts or have spent time in mental institutions, thats clearly not the case. All you have to do to know that, is to look at the Manson Family from the late 1960s. 

Most if not all the members of the Manson Family, were all educated, headed for college if they wanted it. And all came from middle to upper middle class families, all with loving parents. Except for their leader Charlie Manson, who had a at least borderline nightmarish childhood, never knowing his father. A mother who didn't want him and wasn't prepared to raise him, who got passed around from house to house, who I believe never even attended high school, at least on the outside. Jonestown is another example of that where either their leader in Jonestown was well educated and very intelligent. 

But Jim Jones was also borderline evil and became a very dangerous man responsible for the murders of hundreds of people. Jonestown again was made up of young middle class people who were somewhat lost in life and not sure where they were going. Who hated the injustices they saw in life and were looking for an escape. They were essentially a collection of Socialists who were looking for an opportunity to build a Socialist Utopia. This was the vision of Jonestown that was to be set up in the jungles of Guyana. A communitarian lifestyle where the cultists would live off of each other and live off the land. 

Its not so much the mentally ill that are targets of these cult groups, but people who have talents, intelligence, abilities, but are not sure where they are going in life. These are the people that get picked up by these groups, because these cult leaders see potential in these people, that they want to exploit and take advantage of in all sorts of ways. The Manson Family and Jonestown are perfect examples of this. 

People who tend to fall in these cult groups, tend to be looked down from people on the outside, who don't understand cult groups as stupid or crazy. "Look at those nuts or morons they deserved what they got". That sort of thing when people who fall into these groups could be the next door neighbor in a middle class or wealthy community. These groups tend to be made up of people who are somewhat lost in life and looking for a break from reality. 

Blind Faith: Expose On The Potter's House Family of Churches

Source:Real Life Journal

The Religious-Right in America are people who are theocratic Christians and would like to see an official religion in the United States, who would completely rewrite the United States Constitution and make it look like a fundamentalist religious document. This is why I call this political faction in America thats on the far-right a religious-cult. 

Thats exactly what the Religious-Right is, a lot of these people are either very ignorant or brainwashed or a combination of both. And view people that the country as a whole tends to tolerate and not look down on as immoral people. Such as homosexuals, adulterers, gamblers, people who watch adult entertainment to use as examples. All things that the Religious-Right would like to outlaw in America. 

Other Americans might not approve of these activities. But tend to look at it as "the individuals business and we do not need big government interfering with how individuals live their own lives". And so-fourth, but with the Religious-Right its another ball game. They just don't look down at these activities, but see them as immoral and Un-American and needs to be outlawed all together. This is why I call the Religious-Right in America a religious cult. 

Buddy TV: Anna Torv- 'Talks About Fringe Season Five'

Source:Buddy TV- Actress Anna Torv, talking about the Season Five of Fringe.

Source:Real Life Journal

"Anna Torv (Olivia Dunham) talks about her character in 'Fringe' season 5:Buddy TV

For more 'Fringe' recaps, news, photos and interviews visit us on BuddyTV:Buddy TV."

From Buddy TV

I’ve never seen the show Fringe, except for a few minutes of its reruns that was once on a channel that is now called SCI, that use to be called Discovery Science. But I would like to see a few shows of it in the future, if for no other reason that to see Anna Torv in it. Because I gotta be honest, reading the synopsis of it online, was not an attention grabber for me. You would have to be either an X Files junky or a sci-fi junky in general, which I’m not to be into fringe.

Fringe is about this made up division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that is run by the Department of Homeland Security. Well anyone in America familiar with the FBI and DHS, knows that the FBI is not part of DHS. So that is one problem for Fringe, but it gets worst for me. Because the Fringe unit so to speak on the show’s job is to investigate the abnormal. Crimes that can’t be explained, supernatural events. Which is just not my cup of tea.

I like cop shows and law enforcement show in general, especially if they involve detectives or other investigators, that are believable and based on realty. That is just who I am as both a Liberal and as a person that I’m into things that are believable and credible and go where the evidence takes me. And that is just not Fringe, but what Fringe looks like is another one of those trendy supernatural detective shows, part of that genre that the Sci-Fi Network and FOX made popular in the late 1990s and the last ten years.